Oral
Answers to
Questions

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Access to Social Care

Mike Gapes: What steps he is taking to improve access to social care for people living with unmet social care needs.

Jeremy Hunt: The health and social care systems are inextricably linked, which is why we need to improve access to the social care system, and we will be setting out plans to do so in a Green Paper.

Mike Gapes: Age UK says that 1.2 million older people have unmet social care needs. Is it not time that we thought about integration in a practical way, and where we have acute hospitals with land next to them, such as King George Hospital in my constituency, we start to build sheltered accommodation or intermediate care on those sites so that people can easily be transferred into and out of the beds, freeing them up for other people who need them?

Jeremy Hunt: That is a wise suggestion, and it is exactly the direction of our thinking in the social care Green Paper, which will have a significant chapter on housing. Integration is not just about integrating health and social care; it is also about other services offered by local authorities. I commend, too, the hon. Gentleman’s local authority of Redbridge: it is No. 1 in the country for user satisfaction with the social care system and No. 4 for carer satisfaction.

Sarah Wollaston: One of the most pressing issues for those who depend on social care is resolution of the back-pay issue for sleep-in shifts. Will the Secretary of State update the House with his own estimate of the liability? The independent sector puts this liability collectively at around £400 million. Will he also update us on the progress being made, because he will know that many sectors are handing back their contracts and withdrawing?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this serious issue, and I can reassure her that a lot of work has been going on inside the Government to work out  how to resolve the issue. A court case is due that may have a material impact on those numbers, but we are continuing to work very hard and fully understand the fragility of the current market situation.

Laura Smith: In December, the health survey for England revealed that older people in more deprived areas are twice as likely as average to have unmet social care needs. Is this not yet another example of Tory cuts reducing councils’ abilities to meet the requirements of people with care needs?

Jeremy Hunt: I welcome the question, but let me also gently tell the hon. Lady what the actual story is with respect to cuts. Yes, the social care budget was cut after the 2008 financial recession, but she may remember that a different party was in power when that happened. Under this Prime Minister, those cuts have been reversed and the social care budget is going up by £9.4 billion in this spending review period.

Julia Lopez: Inadequate social and primary care provision lies at the root of a great deal of pressure on hospital A&Es, so we need to plan much better for the demand for services at that level. Will the Secretary of State press the Treasury to ensure that receipts from NHS property transactions are retained by local healthcare trusts, so that they can build much larger primary care facilities than those currently planned?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point: unless we make it easier for trusts to retain the receipts of property transactions, they will be likely to sit on these properties and we will not get the positive ideas such as that suggested earlier by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), so we do need to find a way to make sure that local areas benefit when they do these deals.

Barbara Keeley: The Alzheimer’s Society estimates that at least 10,000 people with dementia have been stuck in hospital in the last year despite being ready to leave, and many of the delays were caused by a lack of care in the community for them. There can be no more disorientating thing for a person with dementia than being stuck in hospital when they do not need to be there. So with dementia awareness week approaching, is it not time for the Secretary of State to meet the social care needs of people with dementia fully by meeting the funding gap for social care in this Parliament?

Jeremy Hunt: Let me explain what is happening on that front. In the first five years after 2010, social care funding went down by 1.3% a year—we had a terrible financial crisis that we were trying to deal with—but since then, in the current spending review period, it is going up by 2.2% a year, which is an 8% real-terms increase over this spending review period. I completely agree with the hon. Lady that we need to do a much better job. [Interruption.] Opposition Members talk from a sedentary position about priorities; our priority has been to get this economy on its feet so that we can put more money into the NHS and social care system, and that is what will continue to happen under a Conservative Government.

Supporting People with Mental Health Problems

Lisa Cameron: What role his Department has in supporting people with mental health problems to access help in relation to housing, debt and employment.

Jackie Doyle-Price: The Department is working with the NHS and across the Government to increase the support available for people with mental illness and on related issues. This includes investing £39 million to double the number of employment advisers in IAPT—increasing access to psychological therapy—as well as reviewing the practice of GPs charging for evidence of patients in debt crisis and the introduction of a duty under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 for the NHS to refer people at risk of homelessness to the local authority.

Lisa Cameron: A quarter of people experiencing mental health problems are also in problem debt, and eight out of 10 mental health practitioners surveyed have said that they have less time to deliver clinical care because they are being asked to assist with the task of writing up debt management plans. Does the Minister agree that to ensure the best chance of recovery, commissioning groups require to integrate advice alongside mental health care, particularly for those in problem debt?

Jackie Doyle-Price: The hon. Lady makes a sensible point. Of course it is true that people’s personal circumstances are a symptom and a cause of mental ill health. We are doing more to enable those delivering mental health services to signpost people with problem debt to appropriate services. Clearly, that becomes easier where those services are co-located with citizens advice bureaux. In addition, the Breathing Space programme aims to provide a break for people with debt. I recognise, however, that this is a serious problem and that debt problems will cause mental illness.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the Minister explain to the House how the Thriving at Work programme will play a role in improving public mental health as well as benefiting our working lives?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is very much this Government’s view that work is good for people’s health, and the more we can encourage people to live independently and feel in control of their lives, the better their health outcomes will be. We absolutely stand by the Thriving at Work programme.

Vincent Cable: Is the Minister aware of the growing incidence of mental illness associated with gambling addiction and of the rapid rise in suicides as a consequence? Will she try to ensure that there is adequate psychiatric capacity within the NHS, and will she liaise with her colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture Media and Sport on preventive action?

Jackie Doyle-Price: The right hon. Gentleman rightly identifies problem gambling as another important contributory factor to mental ill health. When it gets  out of hand, it can lead to considerable stress. We will of course work with the Department for Digital, Culture Media and Sport to ensure that we have the right regulatory processes in place, as well as ensuring that we are giving support to those who need it.

Fiona Bruce: Does the Minister agree that, when children and young people have mental health challenges, it is important wherever possible to engage with their families to help them to overcome them?

Jackie Doyle-Price: What my hon. Friend says is self-evidently true. We are putting in more help in schools through the Green Paper, but we also need to ensure that we are engaged with families much earlier than that. We have the health visitor programme, and those visits help to build relationships with parents. We have also taken action on specific issues, including the initiative relating to the children of alcoholics. We will continue to focus support where it is needed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. It is very good to welcome back to the Chamber the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).

National Diabetes Audit: Mental Health

Keith Vaz: Whether he plans to include information on mental health in the national diabetes audit.

Jackie Doyle-Price: People with long-term health conditions such as diabetes are at a higher risk of mental health disorders, and we are determined to improve co-ordination between services. That is why the national diabetes audit has started collecting information from GP practices on people who have both diabetes and severe mental ill health.

Keith Vaz: I should like to declare my interest. As the Minister knows, three out of five people with diabetes suffer from emotional and psychological problems, including depression and anxiety. A survey recently showed that 76% of diabetics were offered no emotional or mental health support. Will she look at the excellent work that is being done by the NHS in Grampian in Scotland, to see whether its programme could be rolled out for the rest of the country?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I would be delighted to look at the progress being made in Grampian, and we are always keen to learn from the experiences of other nations. The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point: people with long-term physical conditions are more likely to suffer from mental ill health. As for NHS spending, at least £1 in every eight that is spent on long-term conditions is linked to poor mental health and wellbeing spend. We have also produced a pathway for people with long-term physical health conditions to deliver more effective IAPT—increasing access to psychological therapy—services for them. However, we can always continue to learn about this subject.

Andrew Selous: Obese adults are seven times more likely to have type 2 diabetes and the associated mental health problems that go with it. Is my hon. Friend that 140,000 obese children would qualify for adult tier 4 bariatric surgery, but there is little available? Should the NHS be fortunate enough to get some well-deserved extra money for its 70th anniversary, may I put in a bid for that area to be considered?

Jackie Doyle-Price: My hon. Friend is right that once children become obese they are going to become obese adults, with all the health problems that come with that. I do not want to steal the thunder of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), but rest assured that we will examine what more we can do to tackle obesity in children.

Jim Shannon: I declare an interest as a type 2 diabetic. Bearing in mind that three out of five people with diabetes have mental health issues, will the Minister outline what support services GPs should be able to offer at the first diagnosis of diabetes? Early diagnosis is key.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I could not agree more. We need GPs to understand that they must consider a patient’s needs as a whole, not just the condition that is presented at the time, and that message has been sitting behind the guidance that we have been issuing to GPs on how they manage patients with long-term health conditions.

NHS Bursaries

Gill Furniss: What assessment he has made of the effect of the withdrawal of NHS bursaries on applications for nursing degrees.

Stella Creasy: What assessment he has made of the effect of the withdrawal of NHS bursaries on applications for nursing degrees.

Grahame Morris: What assessment he has made of the effect of the withdrawal of NHS bursaries on applications for nursing degrees.

Stephen Barclay: Nursing remains a strong career choice, with more than 22,500 students placed during the 2017 UCAS application cycle. Demand for nursing places continues to outstrip the available training places.

Gill Furniss: Figures from the Royal College of Nursing show that applications have fallen by 33% since the withdrawal of bursaries. At the same time, the Government’s Brexit shambles has led to a drastic decline in EU nursing applications. How many years of such decline do we have to see before the Secretary of State and the Minister will intervene?

Stephen Barclay: What matters is not the number of rejected applicants, but the increase in places—the number of people actually training to be a nurse. The reality is that 5,000 more nurses will be training each year up to 2020 as a result of the changes.

Stella Creasy: The NHS already has 34,000 nursing vacancies. Given that there has been a 97% drop in nursing applications from the EU and that studies show that nearly half of all hospital shifts include agency nurses, will the Minister at least admit that cutting the bursary scheme has been a false economy for our NHS?

Stephen Barclay: It is not a false economy to increase the supply of nurses, which is what the changes have done. Indeed, they form part of a wider package of measures, including “Agenda for Change”, pay rises and the return to practice scheme, which has seen 4,355 starters returning to the profession. More and more nurses are being trained, which is why we now have over 13,000 more nurses than in 2010.

Grahame Morris: I respectfully remind the Minister that this is about recruitment and retention. The RCN says that we can train a postgraduate nurse within 18 months, which is a significant untapped resource, so why are the Government planning to withdraw support from postgraduate nurses training, too?

Stephen Barclay: We have a debate involving postgraduate nursing tomorrow, but the intention is to increase the number of such nurses by removing the current cap, which means that many who want to apply for postgraduate courses cannot find the clinical places to do so. That is the nature of tomorrow’s debate, and I look forward to seeing the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber.

Robert Halfon: Will my hon. Friend, on top of the degree nursing apprenticeships, rapidly increase the nursing apprenticeship programme so nurses can earn while they learn, have no debt and get a skill that they and our country need?

Stephen Barclay: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to signpost this as one of a suite of ways to increase the number of nurses in the profession. As he alludes to, there will be 5,000 nursing apprenticeships this year, and we are expanding the programme, with 7,500 starting next year.

Alex Chalk: This weekend, I had to take a poorly member of my family to Cheltenham General Hospital, and the skill, concern and good humour of the emergency nurse practitioners were fantastic. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Cheltenham’s emergency nurse practitioners? Does he agree that we should be doing everything possible, through their pay scales, to reward and retain them?

Stephen Barclay: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the nurses at Cheltenham, and elsewhere, for the work they do. As he says, that is exactly why this Government, with the support of the Treasury, have backed nurses with a big pay rise in the “Agenda for Change” programme.

Stephen Lloyd: With every reputable independent body showing very clearly that we have a staffing crisis in the NHS nursing profession, can the Minister explain how cutting bursaries actually improves the situation?

Stephen Barclay: I am very happy to do so. We are removing the cap on the number of places covered by the bursaries and increasing the number of student places by 25%, which means that there will be 5,000 more nurses in training as a result of these changes.

Philippa Whitford: The Secretary of State’s removal of the nursing bursary and introduction of tuition fees have resulted in a 33% drop in applications in England. In Scotland, we have kept the bursary, a carer’s allowance and free tuition, which means that student nurses are up to £18,000 a year better off, and indeed they also earn more once they graduate. Does the Minister recognise that that is why applications in Scotland have remained stable while in England they have dropped by a third?

Stephen Barclay: The hon. Lady speaks with great authority on health matters, but, again, she misses the distinction between the number of applicants and the number of nurses in training. It is about how many places are available, and we are increasing by 25% the number of nurses in training. That is what will address the supply and address some of the vacancies in the profession.

Philippa Whitford: Workforce is a challenge for all four national health services across the UK, but, according to NHS Improvement, there are 36,000 nursing vacancies in England, more than twice the rate in Scotland. The Minister claims that more nurse students are training, but in fact there were 700 fewer in training in England last year, compared with an 8% increase in Scotland. The key difference is that in Scotland we are supporting the finances of student nurses, so will the Government accept that removing the nursing bursary was a mistake and reintroduce it?

Stephen Barclay: The distinction the hon. Lady fails to make is that in England we are increasing the number of nurses in training by 25%; we are ensuring that nurses who have left the profession can return through the return-to-work programme; and we are introducing significant additional pay through “Agenda for Change”. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) said, we are also creating new routes so that those who come into the NHS through other routes, such as by joining as a healthcare assistant, are not trapped in those roles but are able to progress, because the Conservative party backs people who want to progress in their careers. Healthcare assistants who want to progress into nursing should have that opportunity.

Justin Madders: When defending the decision to scrap bursaries, the Secretary of State said that, if done right, it could provide up to 20,000 extra nursing posts by 2020. Well, that figure now looks wildly optimistic, with applications down two years in a row. Is it not time that Ministers admitted they have got this one wrong and joined the Opposition in the Lobby tomorrow to vote against any further extensions to this failed policy?

Stephen Barclay: If Members vote against the policy tomorrow, the reality is that they will be voting for a cap on the number of postgraduate nurses going into the system, and therefore they will be saying that more  people should be rejected—more people should lose the opportunity to become nurses—because they want to have a cap that restricts the supply of teaching places.

Perinatal Mental Health

Jenny Chapman: What support GPs provide to mothers experiencing perinatal mental health problems.

Jackie Doyle-Price: We are committed to improving mental health support for expectant and new mothers, and GPs are crucial to that. We recognise that specialist services are also required, and I am proud to announce today that NHS England will be spending £23 million on rolling out the second wave of community perinatal services to underserved parts of the country and is on course to achieve full geographic coverage by 2020-21.

Jenny Chapman: Given that 95% of mums surveyed by the NCT said that they had experienced mental health problems, that only 22% said they were even asked about this by their GP and that only 24% of the country has any specialist provision, what more does the Minister think she ought to be doing?

Jackie Doyle-Price: The second wave roll-out will cover the entire geographical spread of the country. This is a transformational programme, so, by definition, it will take time to roll out, but I agree with the hon. Lady that GPs do have a role to play in this. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends postnatal checks for mothers, and NHS England expects commissioners to undertake that those guidelines are being met. As for any further support by GPs, she will be aware that there is a renegotiation of the GP contract and it will be covered there.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Some young people are mothers and do have mental health problems, upon which important matter the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) has Question 19, which, sadly, will not be reached. If she wishes to give the House the benefit of her thoughts now, she is most welcome to do so, but it is not obligatory. [Interruption.] We will get her in later.

Wera Hobhouse: Given that children of mothers with perinatal health problems are at much higher risk of developing mental health problems themselves, why does the Government’s Green Paper on mental health not address prevention in respect of perinatal health?

Jackie Doyle-Price: As I have said before, the proposals in the Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health were very much focused on what we were going to be delivering through schools. Alongside that, we have a very ambitious programme on perinatal mental health, where we are spending an extra £365 million on delivering both acute care and more support in the community. Today, I have just announced the second wave of that funding.

Luciana Berger: Back in 2010, we had 19 mother and baby units across this country, but cuts to those beds resulted in our then having 15 mother and baby units. Back in November 2016, the Government said we were going to see more beds opened. I listened closely to the statement the Minister has just made, but we are still waiting for beds that were announced back in November 2016. What are her Government going to do to ensure that mothers and babies will be kept together and can access the beds they desperately need?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I do not accept what the hon. Lady is saying. We are investing in new mother and baby units and making sure we have sufficiently good provision geographically so that mothers and babies can access them. We are also investing in more support in the community. I am pleased that the programme we are delivering, which is £365 million of additional support, will deliver early intervention for young mothers and babies.

Rural and Urban Communities: Health and Care Needs

Anne Marie Morris: Whether he has made a comparative assessment of the health and social care needs of rural and urban communities.

Jackie Doyle-Price: The diverse health and social care needs of local communities are considered in this Government’s policy and implementation. We are actively supporting local areas, including through Public Health England’s joint work with the Local Government Association, providing evidence-based recommendations to tackle the different needs of rural communities.

Anne Marie Morris: Would the Minister find it helpful to ask the national centre for rural health and care, shortly to be launched, to identify the specific challenges facing the providers of health and care in rural areas?

Jackie Doyle-Price: The centre has already engaged with stakeholders to identify the issues and responses to the challenge of providing health and care in rural settings. The centre will focus on four areas—data; research; technology; and workforce and learning—and will work with partners to identify, scale up and promote the adoption of its activities across the public and private health sector to reduce health inequalities and improve the quality of life for all rural people.

Barry Sheerman: If the ministerial team want to learn about the comparison of health outcomes in urban and rural communities, they should come to Huddersfield, as we have both there. But what we want in Huddersfield is a great hospital, great GPs and a supportive community pharmacy network. When are we going to get them?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I will address the point the hon. Gentleman makes about urban and rural health, as my constituency has the same situation. Obviously, there are specific challenges with regard to sparsity of population,  which have to be tackled through the funding formula. The new national centre for rural health and care will address that.

Matt Warman: For people in my rural constituency, the value of services at Boston’s paediatric unit could not be higher. Does the Minister agree with me—and with what the Prime Minister said last Wednesday—that we should leave no stone unturned when it comes to making sure that we can recruit the paediatricians we need and sustain the services at Pilgrim Hospital?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I am happy to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend and those of the Prime Minister. We should leave no stone unturned in making sure that we recruit enough paediatricians to support the service. I reiterate that every effort will be made to ensure that that happens.

Carol Monaghan: Scotland recruits many health professionals from overseas, and that is particularly important for the delivery of healthcare in rural areas. Does the Minister agree that Scotland needs overseas doctors and nurses? What representations has she made to the Minister for Immigration regarding the lifting of the tier 2 visa cap?

Jackie Doyle-Price: The hon. Lady will understand that the impact on the workforce is of as much interest to us south of the border as it is to her. We continue to engage in representations with colleagues to address such matters.

Philip Hollobone: Northamptonshire has both rural and urban communities, but our biggest pressures are a rapid population increase because of house building and a big increase in the number of people who are, thank goodness, living to more than 80 years of age. Will the Minister ensure that those two issues are addressed in any future funding formula?

Jackie Doyle-Price: My hon. Friend is quite right that when we allocate funds we have to make sure that we keep pace with population growth among both the early years and the older years, which is where the demand comes from.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I call Karen Lee. No? The hon. Lady is a most confusing individual.

Karen Lee: I wanted to ask a supplementary to the question about Boston.

John Bercow: Oh, well, blurt it out.

Karen Lee: Lincoln’s walk-in centre closed a few weeks ago and Boston’s paediatric department is threatened with closure. Does the Minister agree that cuts and privatisation in our NHS are damaging staff recruitment, retention and morale?  Ministers can shake their heads, but it is true: there are not enough doctors at Boston, which affects A&E and wider care delivery.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I can add no more to what I have already said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman). We will do everything we can to make sure that we can recruit sufficient paediatricians for that hospital.

Julie Cooper: What plans does the Minister have to increase the role of community pharmacies in meeting the health needs of rural and urban communities? In 2016, the Government promised to develop an extended role for community pharmacies. In particular, they committed in the House that the national roll-out of a minor ailments scheme would be implemented by April 2018. Given that it is now May 2018 and that has not happened, and that there has been an overall reduction in services commissioned via community pharmacies in both rural and urban communities, will the Minister tell the House when exactly the Government intend to honour their commitment?

Jackie Doyle-Price: The provision of community pharmacies is an important part of integrated primary care. We will continue to make sure that we direct sufficient resource to address the particular challenges caused by rural sparsity. I remind the hon. Lady of what we have already done: we spent £175 million from the Prime Minister’s challenge fund to transform GP access, and that is increasing access in areas such as north Yorkshire, Devon and Cornwall. We will continue to look into the particular challenges that rural communities face and make resources available.

NHS Dentistry: Funding Distribution

Imran Hussain: What guidance his Department provides to NHS England on the redistribution to other healthcare areas of funding clawed back from dentists who have not met their contracted units of dental activity.

Steve Brine: The Department does not issue guidance specifically to NHS England on the redistribution of funding that is recouped from dental contracts. Of course, any decisions on the provision of healthcare are rightly a matter for the local NHS, because local commissioners are best placed to assess the dental needs and priorities among their local population, including the one that the hon. Gentleman represents in Bradford.

Imran Hussain: People in Bradford cannot get an NHS dentist, child tooth decay rates are soaring, and people are being admitted to hospital because they cannot get dental care. It was announced over the weekend that Bradford will receive an extra £332,000, which I of course welcome, but between 2014 and 2017, more than £300,000 was taken from dental care funding in the district. Is it not the case that the new funding is just a misleading announcement?

Steve Brine: I think that is what is known as a back-handed welcome. We have made great progress on improving access to dentistry in England, but we know that there are parts of the country, including the hon. Gentleman’s area, in which we can do more. That is why NHS England in Yorkshire and the Humber—with  which I liaise on matters raised by a number of Opposition colleagues—is finalising plans to improve access to dentistry throughout the region, paying particular attention to 20 areas. Bradford East is one of those areas and, as the hon. Gentleman said, will shortly receive additional recouped funding to support his constituents.

Paul Williams: Why are dentists, such as my constituent Peter Sharp in Thornaby in Stockton South, funded less per unit of dental activity than his colleagues who are working in more affluent areas? Surely, to reduce health inequalities, it should be the other way round?

Steve Brine: That goes to the heart of why we are reforming the dental contracts. Our 73 high street dental practices are continuing to test the preventive focused clinical approach to a new remuneration practice. [Interruption.] Someone on the Opposition Front Bench has just said “when” from a sedentary position. It will be when we have got it right.

John Bercow: The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) has beetled into the Chamber like a perspiring postman just in time. It is very good to see the fellow.

GP Services: Capacity and Availability

Thomas Tugendhat: What steps he is taking to increase the capacity and availability of GP services.

Jeremy Hunt: We want all NHS patients to be able to access appointments in the evenings and at weekends. Thanks to our programme, 40% of the population currently do so, and that will rise to 100% next October.

Thomas Tugendhat: Forgive me for rushing in; I was tied up with Committee matters.
My right hon. Friend has set out a great vision for the national health service over recent years, and I very much welcome it, but does he agree that, in local areas, some of the GP provision could do with a little more work? I am particularly thinking of West Malling in my own constituency where a large element of the community is finding it harder to get access, and there is a danger that the GP surgery may leave the high street.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that issue. He does have, I think, 28 more GPs in the west Kent clinical commissioning group area than in 2010, but there is a particular issue over premises. The need to invest in premises is deterring younger GPs from becoming partners, and sometimes making GP surgeries unviable. We are looking at that problem now.

Madeleine Moon: So many GP practices—no matter what salaries or what terms and conditions they offer—are reporting a reluctance by newly qualified GPs to go into GP practice. What will the Minister do about the hours of work—the time given to consult with constituents—to make it easier for people to see GP practice as a viable opportunity to serve their community?

Jeremy Hunt: I do very much agree with the hon. Lady, which is why we are working hard to recruit 5,000 extra GPs into general practice in England. I gently point out to her that the Royal College of General Practitioners says that, while we spend 9.2% of the NHS budget in England on general practice, it is only 7.3% in Wales.

David Tredinnick: Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider the recent Professional Standards Authority report, “Untapped Resources”, of which the principal recommendation is that practitioners on PSA-accredited registers should have powers to make direct NHS referrals, which would reduce the burden on GP surgeries?

Jeremy Hunt: I always look forward to the multiple interesting ways in which my hon. Friend returns to the same subject. We are always open to ideas that reduce pressures on GP surgeries, and I will look carefully at his latest idea.

Helen Jones: The Secretary of State knows—because I keep telling him—that Warrington has fewer GPs than its population warrants. What concrete steps will he take to attract GPs to areas that are under-doctored?

Jeremy Hunt: Most parts of the country would say that they need more GPs, which is why we are trying to improve the capacity across the country. So, what have we done? Well, very recently we announced six new medical schools, which will have a specific focus on attracting new students into general practice. That is one of a number of measures.

Alcohol: Minimum Unit Pricing

Neil Gray: What recent discussions he has had with Public Health England on the potential merits of introducing minimum unit pricing for alcohol in England.

Steve Brine: The Government remain committed to tackling all alcohol-related harms, which is why we are developing a new alcohol strategy. As part of that, I am commissioning Public Health England to undertake a review of the evidence for minimum unit pricing in England.

Neil Gray: That is welcome news. The Scottish National party Government have taken the lead in this matter by taking the bold step to set a minimum unit price for alcohol as part of wider interventions to help tackle excessive consumption. In particular, they want to end the days of strong white ciders being sold at pocket money prices. The British Medical Association has long called for that, so at what stage will we learn of further progress in the Government’s thinking?

Steve Brine: The previous consultation in 2013 found that the evidence, as it stood at the time, was not entirely conclusive. That is still the case, which is why the Government intend to keep the policy under review. Many times in this Chamber we are given the benefit of experience north of the border as to whether a policy has been a success, but it is not always strictly spot on. Given that the policy only came in last week, it is  probably premature to say that it is a success, but we will welcome the opportunity to see the evidence emerge from Scotland’s implementation of minimum unit pricing, and we will be watching very closely.

John Grogan: Does the Minister agree that it is significant that major pub companies and brewers such as Greene King, Coors and Tennent’s now support minimum pricing, and that what is good for the nation’s health is good for the nation’s pubs and the promotion of sensible drinking?

Steve Brine: We want to get on and tackle all avoidable harms, including alcohol. The vast majority of our constituents enjoy a drink and have a healthy relationship with alcohol, but that is not the case for everybody. Some people can harm themselves, society and, as we have heard, their children. What is happening north of the border in Scotland is very welcome. I think that there will be an early evaluation there at the one-year point, and we will be watching that like a hawk.

Obesity

Victoria Prentis: What steps the Government are taking to tackle obesity.

Jeremy Hunt: Childhood obesity is one of the biggest public health challenges we face, which is why we are committed to reducing the sugar in products consumed by children by 20% over four years.

Victoria Prentis: I recently met my constituent, Professor John Wass, at an Obesity Health Alliance tea, where—the Secretary of State will be pleased to know—no cake was served. Professor Wass shares my concerns about the availability of hospital services for those with established obesity. Will my right hon. Friend set out what plans his Department has to treat those who are already obese?

Jeremy Hunt: We recognise the value of bariatric surgery, which is of course subject to the normal waiting time standards for those for whom it is appropriate. However, prevention is better than cure. That is why we are hoping to bring forward shortly further measures to tackle childhood obesity, which is one of our biggest concerns.

Rachael Maskell: Obesity related hospital admissions in York have more than doubled in the last three years. As part of NHS70, we in York are launching a city-wide public health initiative to ensure that we address issues around obesity, diet and exercise. Will the Secretary of State support such work and ensure that we get the funding that we need to run this initiative for the whole constituency and the city?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to give the project my wholehearted support. If we are going to tackle obesity, we need an approach that goes across all Departments of Government, including local government, and this initiative sounds excellent. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), will be looking into the funding.

Kevin Hollinrake: Lambert Hospital in Thirsk was bequeathed to the town by Sara Lambert in 1890, and was closed via the back door by South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust last year. NHS Property Services is planning a sell-off to the highest bidder, despite the fair offer that is on the table from the local authority which could include provision for community use such as public health advice. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are times when value to the public might outweigh the requirement to maximise a price?

Jeremy Hunt: I have spoken to my hon. Friend about this matter, and he speaks powerfully about the community interest in this particular transaction. We have listened carefully to what he has said, and will continue to do so before a decision is made.

Sharon Hodgson: This August marks two years since the world’s first childhood obesity plan was published, but the Government’s plan, at just 13 pages, left a lot to be desired. More than 5.5 million children in this country are now officially classed as overweight or obese, with 140,000 classed as morbidly obese, as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) mentioned. This is now an epidemic. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the Government’s second childhood obesity plan—due this summer, we have heard—will include meaningful policies such as restricting junk food advertising and the sale of energy drinks to children?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to do more, because this is a very serious issue. I think that she is being slightly unfair on our first initiative. The sugary drinks tax has been responsible for 45 million kg of sugar being removed from the market, which is enormously important for children. There is more to be done and I hope that we will be able to announce plans soon.

Tom Pursglove: The Daily Mile initiative in schools has huge potential in reducing childhood obesity, improving academic attainment, and improving the mental wellbeing of our young people. Will my right hon. Friend look closely at that and have conversations across Government about the benefits it could bring?

Jeremy Hunt: That is an excellent initiative from Scotland, and it shows why we all benefit from being in the United Kingdom together. Yes, we will look at it very closely.

Liz McInnes: In tackling childhood obesity, will the Health Secretary declare his support for Jamie Oliver’s AdEnough campaign and get rid of pre-watershed television advertising of junk food to our children?

Jeremy Hunt: That is one of a number of measures that we are looking at. We are absolutely determined to do something about this. One in 10 children starts school obese, and by the time they leave primary school the figure is one in five. We cannot wait any longer.

Stroke Patients: Health Outcomes

Kate Green: What steps he is taking to improve health outcomes for stroke patients.

Steve Brine: Evidence from cities such as Manchester and London is very clear that centralising stroke treatment in hyper-acute stroke units considerably improves outcomes, with patients having access to a specialist at all times and immediate access to imaging and investigative facilities, giving them the best chances in terms of outcome.

Kate Green: My 82-year-old constituent, Freda, is recovering well from a serious stroke, but she has been told that there is an 18-week wait for physiotherapy and that this is the NHS standard. Does the Minister think that that is good enough?

Steve Brine: I cannot comment on the individual case, but I can say that NHS England and we at the Department are working closely with the Stroke Association to develop a new national plan for stroke in England which we expect to publish this summer. The hon. Lady’s constituents and mine will benefit from the national policy narrative, but they will also benefit from some brilliant charities that work on the ground with constituents. Yesterday, I saw Chandlers Ford Stroke Support Group at the amazing Funtasia in my constituency. That group does a lot to support people in stroke as well.

Rachel Maclean: In Worcestershire, we are fortunate to have some excellent stroke services serving my constituents across the whole county. Does the Secretary of State agree that the most important aspect of any service is leadership? With that in mind, will he update the House on his progress in appointing a new chair for our trust to deliver stroke services and other services to Redditch?

Steve Brine: I am not close to that issue, but I am told that we have some excellent candidates, and I think that my hon. Friend will be pleased.

Ruth George: The most important service that stroke patients need is priority in getting to hospital for the treatment they need. A patient in my constituency recently had to wait five hours for an ambulance, with a GP sitting next to her begging the service to send one. East Midlands Ambulance Service has now had a review and will be getting an increase in its funding, but can that be made faster over the next two years?

Steve Brine: The new ambulance standards are designed to do exactly that. I note the hon. Lady’s welcome for that in her area. That is critical, but of course it is critical that people get to the right place and get the right treatment. That is why I said at the start of these exchanges that centralising stroke treatment is not always popular but is often the best thing for clinical outcomes.

NHS Dentistry

Alex Cunningham: How many people have accessed NHS dentistry services in the last 12 months for which data is available.

Steve Brine: Access to NHS dentistry remains consistently high. The most recent figures show  that 22 million adults were seen by an NHS dentist in the 24 months from January ’16 to Christmas last year and 6.9 million children visited a dentist last year.

Alex Cunningham: Twelve thousand of those people in my constituency were left without a dentist when the Queensway practice in Billingham, in common with many dentists across the country, ditched NHS work. People are trying to build capacity there, but the funding system for dentists is a major impediment. What plans do the Government have to address the crisis in NHS dentistry, encourage dentists to stay with the NHS, and make dental health a priority?

Steve Brine: We have been in correspondence about the Queensway practice, as the hon. Gentleman knows. When a dental contract ends and patients need to find another dentist, NHS England has a legal duty, as he knows, to commission alternative services to meet local need. I understand that that is happening in his area and that he is being kept regularly updated on the situation. In answer to a previous question, I mentioned the dental contract, which is a key part of our reforms to keep people in, and attract people into, the dental profession.

Emma Hardy: It is shameful that our older and vulnerable residents living in care homes do not have the access to dental treatment that they need. The Minister revealed in a written answer to me that older people living in care homes are less likely to have any natural teeth and are more likely to have serious tooth decay, but still no specific action has been taken. Will the Secretary of State meet me and commit to do everything he can to help prevent serious tooth decay for our older and most vulnerable residents?

Steve Brine: As I said, NHS England has a legal duty to commission dental services and primary care dental services for the hon. Lady’s constituents. If she wants to bring a specific example from her constituency to me, I will be happy to look at it.

Social Media: Children’s Mental Health

James Morris: What steps he is taking to protect children’s mental wellbeing from the harmful effects of social media.

Jeremy Hunt: We are worried about the effects of social media on children and young people, which is why we have asked the chief medical officer to undertake a systematic review of all the international literature, to help us understand what further steps to take.

James Morris: I recently met a group of headteachers in Halesowen, who expressed real concern about the effects of social media on the health of their pupils. Does the Secretary of State agree that peer-to-peer support among young people in the classroom and in our communities is a vital way of benefiting young people through the positive aspects of social media and combating the negative effects on their mental health?

My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about mental health, and I totally agree with him. That is why we have given £700,000 to the Anna Freud Centre to train teachers in how to make possible peer support for children having mental health issues.

Helen Goodman: Durham police tell me that when there is a problem on social media, particularly Facebook, it can take six months between their asking for action and the social media company tackling it. Will the Secretary of State speak to the Home Office to get the system changed and speed it up?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I have spoken to the social media companies. They are brilliant technologists, and they have a duty to their customers to make themselves part of the solution, not part of the problem, when these things happen.

Kevin Foster: Does the Secretary of State agree that some of this is about ensuring that parents use appropriate techniques—for example, having specific screen times and engaging with their children about what they see on social media—and giving them the tools to do so?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Parents play a vital role, but social media companies can make it easier for parents like us to do the right thing, and sometimes the tools that parents need to use are not readily available.

Lucy Powell: Speak to any young person about what is causing child mental health issues, and the No. 1 issue is not social media, but exam and test pressure in schools, as we have found in the joint inquiry by the Health and Education Committees. Will the Secretary of State be as harsh on his colleagues in the Department for Education as he is on the social media companies when it comes to child mental health?

Jeremy Hunt: What we actually now have is a record number of children in good or outstanding schools—nearly 2 million more children. That is something we all want for our children, but when it comes to mental health, the NHS has very specific responsibilities, and we of course look into every possible cause.

Folic Acid: Children and Pregnant Women

Anna Turley: What assessment he has made of the potential merits of flour fortified with folic acid for children and pregnant women.

Jackie Doyle-Price: The Government are looking at existing pre and post-conception health advice, including the use of folic acid supplements, which are recommended to help reduce the risks of neural tube defects in unborn children. We are carefully considering the recommendations in the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition report on folic acid, and the Government will set out their position in due course.

Anna Turley: I thank the Minister for that answer, but the UK female diet leaves blood folate levels below World Health Organisation targets, and it was recommended back in 1991 that folic acid should be put into supplements and that flour should be fortified. There are 80 countries around the world where that is happening, and it is reducing cases of spina bifida and other serious illnesses by up to 50%. Will the Minister work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to look once again at the opportunities for fortifying flour with folic acid?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I can confirm that we will continue to look at that. The hon. Lady is right that a large number of countries fortify flour with folic acid, but the UK and other EU countries do not. We have advice that if the intake of folic acid exceeds given levels, that can also bring health problems, but we will continue to look at it.

Topical Questions

Ian Murray: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: I would like to give an update on the breast cancer screening failure. I met the Public Health England chief executive this afternoon, and I am informed that 65,000 letters were sent out last week, and the helpline has taken nearly 14,000 calls to date. Further letters are going out this week, and the first invitations to catch-up screenings will go out next week. Due to the lack of clinical consensus about the effectiveness of screening for older women, we will provide advice and support for all who missed scans and support them in making their own decision as to whether to proceed. We will also publish the terms of reference for the independent inquiry shortly, and I can assure the House that no stone will be left unturned in uncovering the truth.

Ian Murray: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that update, but I would like to ask him about the Brexit transition agreement, which cuts the UK out of the European Medicines Agency. Can he give this House a cast-iron guarantee that that will not stop the regulation of new drugs in the UK to help patients, and will not prevent our world-class pharmaceutical companies from basing themselves here to do world-class research and development?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, I can.

Robert Halfon: The Secretary of State has visited Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow on a number of occasions and he will recognise that, despite excellent staff, the hospital is not fit for purpose. Will he confirm that Harlow is at the top of the list for capital funding, and that we will get the new hospital our town desperately needs?

Stephen Barclay: We recognise that the Princess Alexandra Hospital estate is in a poor condition. NHS Improvement is working with the trust to develop an estate and capital strategy by summer 2018 to be assessed, with other schemes put forward, for the next capital announcement for sustainability  and transformation partnerships. I am very happy to meet my right hon. Friend to have further discussions about it.

Jon Ashworth: I thank the Secretary of State for his update on breast cancer screening. I welcome his letter this morning with respect to patient safety in the private sector, but is not the truth that the best quality of care is provided by a public national health service? Is it not time to legislate to ensure that private hospitals improve their patient safety standards, and if he accepts that levels of safety are not acceptable in the private sector, why is the NHS still referring patients to the unsafe private sector? Should there not be a moratorium on those referrals until these issues are sorted out?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should be very careful in making generalisations about the independent sector, just as he is about the NHS sector, because the truth is that there is too much poor care in both sectors, but both sectors also have outstanding care. I have always said that there will be no special favours for the independent sector, which we will hold to the same high standard of care, through the Care Quality Commission regime, as we do with NHS hospitals. Let me just say to him that if we stopped referring people to the independent sector, 140,000 people would wait longer for their operations, and that is not good care.

Jon Ashworth: We have seen the private sector fail—the NHS is sued by Virgin Care, patient transport contracts have to come back in-house, and Carillion collapses and cleaning contracts have to come back in-house—and now we learn that the hotline for women affected by the breast cancer screening failures is provided by Serco and staffed by call handlers who, far from having medical or counselling training, have had one hour’s training. Do not the women affected deserve better than that? Will the Secretary of State provide the resources for that phone line to be brought back in-house and staffed by medical professionals?

Jeremy Hunt: I normally have so much respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I think those women deserve a lot better than that posturing. The helpline was set up at very short notice because, obviously, the call handlers could not do all their training until I had made a statement to Parliament, which I judged was the most important thing to do first. It is not the only help that the women affected will be getting—on the basis of the advice received, they will be referred back for help at their local hospital, with Macmillan Cancer Support or through specialist clinicians at Public Health England—but we thought it was right that that number was made available as quickly as possible.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I call Eddie Hughes. Get in there, man.

Eddie Hughes: I hope the Minister will join me in congratulating the mayor of Walsall, Marco Longhi, whose mayoralty has raised a significant sum to support WPH Counselling and Education Services, which provides adolescent mental care and counselling in Walsall.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and I very much welcome the contribution made by the charity to support teenagers in his constituency with psychological therapies and to help to address their mental health conditions. I join him in extending my congratulations to the mayor for choosing this very important cause and for endeavouring to raise so much money for it.

Faisal Rashid: Chapelford medical centre in my constituency has been operating out of a portakabin on waste land for many years, due to excessive delays and the failings of various NHS bodies involved in this project. What action will Ministers take to resolve these shocking delays, and will they meet me to give assurances to my constituents?

Steve Brine: I will be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to look at his local issue.

Helen Whately: I welcome the Green Paper on mental health in schools, which was published earlier this year, but it does prompt a question about the mental health of students in further and higher education. Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to look into that issue? If he does not, may I urge him to do so?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her continued industry on these matters. As she mentioned, the Green Paper outlined plans to set up a new national strategic partnership focused on improving the mental health of 16 to 25-year-olds. That partnership is likely to support and build on sector-led initiatives in higher education, such as Universities UK’s #stepchange project, whose launch I attended in September. The strategy calls on higher education leaders to adopt mental health as a strategic priority, to take a whole-university approach to mental health and to embed it across policies, courses and practices. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) need not worry; her Zebedee-like qualities will always make her visible. I am saving her for later. We will hear from her shortly.

Keith Vaz: There is a clear connection between obesity and type 2 diabetes. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that issue will be addressed in the national diabetes prevention programme?

Steve Brine: Obesity has rightly had a strong outing today. We know that it is a leading cause of type 2 diabetes; supporting people to live healthier lifestyles can only reduce the incidence of the disease. So far, more than 170,000 people have been referred to the national diabetes prevention programme. Those who are referred receive tailored, personalised help, including education on healthy eating and lifestyle choices, and bespoke physical exercise programmes.

Philip Dunne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that following his decision to make the capital allocation to Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital  NHS Trust before Easter, that trust has had sufficient confidence to successfully appoint five additional consultants in 10 days in April, thereby improving resilience in acute healthcare in Shropshire?

Stephen Barclay: I very much welcome the progress that my hon. Friend has shared with the House. Many of us will also want to pay tribute to his leadership during his time at the Department in recognising the opportunity for reconfiguration that the capital would unlock and is now delivering.

Stella Creasy: On 21 March, the Secretary of State told the House that he would look at the impact of private finance initiative deals on NHS hospital budgets. What has he done since then? How many meetings has he had about the issue? Will he commit not to use PF2 deals, given the concerns?

Jeremy Hunt: I can absolutely commit that we are very conscious of the failings of PFI when we have any discussion about NHS capital funding, including the previous question. We are very conscious of the need not to make the mistakes that saddled the NHS with £71 billion of PFI debt.

Dr Caroline Johnson: Dispensing practices are a lifeline in rural constituencies such as Sleaford and North Hykeham. Does my right hon. Friend agree that patients who live far from a pharmacy and attend their local dispensing practice should all have access to that dispensing service?

Steve Brine: Yes, I do: dispensing practices are an important part of the widening primary care mix. That is important for constituents in rural areas such as my hon. Friend’s. Community pharmacy and dispensing practices, which she refers to, are increasingly important when they are part of an integrated primary care pathway. That has got to be the future.

David Linden: What discussions have the Government had with Vertex regarding the availability of Orkambi? Many Members packed out Westminster Hall in a debate about that issue. Will the Government give us an update on this really serious issue?

Steve Brine: This issue has received a lot of publicity in recent weeks. My noble Friend Lord O’Shaughnessy and I wrote to Vertex following that debate and asked it to be reasonable and continue, with vigour, its negotiations with NHS England. That letter was made public, as was the company’s actually quite positive response last week. I urge the company again to come to a reasonable conclusion.

Alan Mak: Healthcare delivered by app and other new technologies is increasingly popular with patients. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that the NHS fully explores the possibilities of new technologies when delivering front-line services?

Jeremy Hunt: I will absolutely do that. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent report that he published last week on that very topic. We want to be the first country in the world where all patients can access their own medical record through an app.

John Grogan: Does the Secretary of State share my concern that, according to the Royal College of Physicians, 43% of advertised consultant vacancies were left unfilled in 2016-17? Will Ministers be brave and argue publicly that there should be more visas for overseas doctors?

Jeremy Hunt: Last year we gave more than 4,000 visas for overseas doctors and since I have been Health Secretary we have had nearly 10,000 more doctors, so we absolutely want to address that problem.

Paul Masterton: My constituent Susan is desperately waiting for the Government to bring forward the remedial order for single parent surrogates. The Joint Committee on Human Rights published its response to the original draft in March. Is there any update on when we will get the next version?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are giving careful consideration to the implications of the JCHR’s recommendations and what changes may be necessary to address them. It is our current intention that a revised order be laid for JCHR scrutiny before the summer recess.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Patience rewarded. I call Thelma Walker.

Thelma Walker: Does the Minister agree that eating a nutritionally balanced meal can reduce snacking between meals and therefore help to reduce childhood obesity? If so, will he speak to his colleagues in the Department for Education and ask them to ensure that the 6,400 children in Kirklees who are set to lose out on a well balance nutritious free school meal do not?

Steve Brine: I talk to colleagues across Government all the time. The first round of the child obesity plan—it was maligned earlier—contained many good things, such as the sugary drinks tax. A couple of months ago we launched, with Public Health England, changes in relation to the nutrient profiling of foods marketed to children. That is positive for the hon. Lady’s constituents and for mine.

Jeremy Lefroy: Five years on from the Francis report, how does my right hon. Friend assess patient safety in the NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: There are still many things to tackle when it comes to patient safety, but I think the NHS has risen magnificently to the challenges in the report. There are nearly 45,000 more doctors and nurses across the system. Although there is more to be done, much credit should go to the NHS.

Lisa Nandy: This week marks two and a half months since the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse recommended that compensation be paid urgently to children sent abroad by their Government and subjected to the most appalling child abuse. In that time, the Secretary of State’s Department, despite repeated requests for action, has made not a single statement. Many former child migrants have died and others are  dying. How many more will have to wait, and die waiting, for justice before this Government get their act together and pay them the compensation that is owed?

Jackie Doyle-Price: We have been quite frank about the fact that the child migration policy should never have happened and this Government have apologised repeatedly for it. I can assure the hon. Lady that I am currently working with officials to come up with a formal response to the committee of inquiry.

Leo Docherty: Will the Minister update me on the FIT—faecal immunochemical test—for bowel cancer? It has long been promised and we know it saves lives. When will it materialise?

Steve Brine: I updated Members on this last week in a Westminster Hall debate. Bowel cancer is the fourth most common cancer in the UK and the second leading cause of cancer deaths. My hon. Friend is right that the FIT has long been promised. There have been a lot of challenges—making sure we get it right and referrals into the secondary sector—but the FIT will be rolled out from autumn.

Hilary Benn: The European health insurance card enables British citizens to get medical treatment in the EU, including kidney patients who need dialysis. Without it, many of them simply could not go on holiday at all. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether it remains the Government’s objective to keep the EHIC in place after we have left the EU, and, if so, what progress is being made to ensure that that happens?

Jeremy Hunt: It is absolutely our intention. We think it is beneficial for Brits and beneficial for Europeans. We are very confident that we will be able to negotiate reciprocal healthcare arrangements to protect those benefits, but our first preference would be a continuation of the current scheme.

Bim Afolami: Will the Minister explain how and when the community pharmacy sector will gain access to the pharmacy integration fund? Millions have been promised. When will it be delivered?

Steve Brine: The pharmacy integration fund is a great success. It needed to be ramped up and it is being ramped up. Pharmacists, working within general practice, are making a great difference to the multidisciplinary team within primary care.

John Bercow: I feel sure that “ramped up” is the technical term.

Chris Elmore: The Secretary of State will be aware that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) and I set up an all-party group on the impact of social media on the mental health of children. With all the work the Secretary of State has done to date on that, I wonder whether he and his ministerial team will agree to engage with the all-party group’s inquiry and look at how we find solutions to these problems, including mental health.

Jeremy Hunt: I would be delighted to do so.

John Bercow: Splendid. I call Chris Skidmore.

Chris Skidmore: Several of my constituents have contacted me to welcome the Government’s recent announcement of additional investment for prostate cancer funding. Will the Minister update the House on what the money is and what it will be spent on?

Steve Brine: Gladly. Prostate cancer survival rates are at a record high, but we want to do even better, so last month the Prime Minister announced £75 million to support new research into the early diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. The National Institute for Health Research will recruit 40,000 more patients, which is a lot, for more than 60 studies into prostate cancer over the next five years.

Judith Cummins: I welcome the recent news that NHS England has committed to redirecting extra funding for dental services to Bradford as an area of need—it comes after a high-profile campaign in the Bradford Telegraph and Argus—but I urge the Minister to recognise the need for long-term reform of the dental contract and for a sustainable funding settlement  for all. Will he meet me and others campaigning on this issue to discuss what progress has been made?

Steve Brine: Yes. The dental contract has had a good outing this afternoon. I am always happy to see the hon. Lady and I can tick the Telegraph and Argus off my bucket list if they come along as well.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I have been enjoying listening to my colleagues so much that I inadvertently lost track of time, but it seems only right that the final question should go to the Chair of the Health Committee—I call Dr Sarah Wollaston.

Sarah Wollaston: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing the progress report on sugar reduction and the next steps strategy on the reformulation programme, so that the Health Committee can examine that when Public Health England appears before us on 22 May?

Jeremy Hunt: I had a conversation with Public Health England before questions this afternoon, and it committed to publishing that before that hearing.

LEARNING DISABILITIES MORTALITY REVIEW

Barbara Keeley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make a statement on the learning disabilities mortality review. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. There is a certain amount of chuntering from a sedentary position. The Secretary of State has been with us, but Minister Caroline Dinenage will answer the urgent question, and we look forward to her answer.

Caroline Dinenage: The Government are absolutely committed to reducing the number of people with learning disabilities whose deaths may have been preventable and have pledged to do so with different health and care interventions. The learning disabilities mortality review programme was established in June 2015; it was commissioned by NHS England to support local areas in England to review the deaths of people with a learning disability. Its aims were to identify common themes and learning points, and to provide support to local areas in their development of action plans to take forward the lessons learned.
On 4 May, the University of Bristol published its first annual report of the LeDeR programme, covering the period from July 2016 to November 2017. The report included 1,311 deaths that were notified to the programme and set out nine recommendations based on the 103 reviews completed in this period. The Government welcome the report’s recommendations and support NHS England’s funding of the programme for a further year at £1.4 million. We are already taking steps to address the concerns raised, but the early lessons from the programme will continue to feed into our work, and that of our partners, to reduce premature mortality and improve the quality of services for people with learning disabilities.

Barbara Keeley: Mr Speaker, I think it is disgraceful that the Secretary of State has just run out of the Chamber, rather than answering this question himself—it is disgraceful.
Seven years after Winterbourne View and five years since the avoidable death of Connor Sparrowhawk, the findings of the review show a much worse picture than previous reports about the early deaths of people with learning disabilities. One in eight of the deaths reviewed showed that there had been abuse, neglect, delays in treatment or gaps in care. Women with a learning disability are dying 29 years younger than the general population, and men with a learning disability are dying 23 years younger. Some 28% of the deaths reviewed had occurred before the age of 50, compared with just 5% of the general population who had died by that age.
The Secretary of State announced to the House in December 2016 that he would ask the review for annual reports on its findings, so why was a review of this importance published during the recess, before a bank holiday weekend in the middle of local election results, giving Members little chance to scrutinise its findings? When asked about the report on the “Today” programme on Radio 4, Connor Sparrowhawk’s mother, Dr Sara Ryan, said that she was
“absolutely disgusted by the report”
and that the way it had been published at the beginning of a bank holiday weekend
“shows the disrespect and disregard”
there is for the scandalous position of people with learning disabilities shown in the report.
Only 103 of 1,300 cases passed for review between July 2016 and November 2017 have been reviewed. That is a paltry number. The report cites a lack of local capacity, inadequate training for people completing mortality reviews and staff not having enough time away from their duties to complete a review.
If there are issues around capacity and training, what is NHS England doing to rectify this? Sir Stephen Bubb, who wrote the review into abuse at Winterbourne View, said this in response to the report:
“there can be no community more abused and neglected than people with learning disabilities and their families. How many more deaths before we tackle this injustice?”
Dr Sara Ryan said:
“things have actually got worse than they were 10 years ago”.
What action will the Government take to show the families of people with learning disabilities that their relatives’ lives do count?

Caroline Dinenage: I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue; the report makes for very troubling reading.
On the date of publication, the hon. Lady will be aware that this was an independent report prepared by the University of Bristol and commissioned by NHS England, which wanted to look into this really important issue, and because it was an independent report, it did not actually alert us to publication, so we had no more notice than she did. We are investigating through NHS England and others why that happened.[Official Report, 9 May 2018, Vol. 640, c. 8MC.]
As the report clearly identifies, there is still more work to do, and we will work with partners to see how the recommendations may be implemented. We are committed to learning from every avoidable death to ensure that such terrible tragedies are avoided in the future. She mentions Dr Sara Ryan, whose son, Connor Sparrowhawk, died in such tragic circumstances in my own Southern Health Trust area. She and other parents like her are testimony to the incredible dedication of people who have worked so hard to get justice for their loved ones at a time when they feel least able to do so.
We have done several things already. We have introduced a new legal requirement so that from June every NHS trust will have to publish data on avoidable deaths, including for people with a learning disability, and provide evidence of learning and improvements. We are the first healthcare system in the world to publish estimates of how many people have died as a result of problems in their care. Learning from the review is also informing the development of the pathways of care published by NHS England and the RightCare programme, which is tailored to the needs of people with learning disabilities. Pathways on epilepsy, sepsis and respiratory conditions will be published later this year.
We have introduced the learning disability annual health checks scheme to help ensure that undiagnosed health conditions can be identified early. The uptake of preventive care has been promoted and improved, while the establishing of trust between doctors and patients is providing better continuity of care. We have also supported workforce development by commissioning the development  of learning disabilities core skills education and training framework, which sets out the essential skills and knowledge for all staff involved in learning disability care.
As I said, the report makes for troubling reading, but we asked NHS England to commission it so that we might learn from these deaths and make sure that trusts up and down the country are better equipped to prevent them from happening in the future.

Dame Cheryl Gillan: Every preventable death brings personal tragedy, as was highlighted in a 2016 report by Autistica, the autism charity, entitled “Personal tragedies, public crisis”. Autistic adults with a learning disability are 40 times more likely to die prematurely. That is why I welcomed the Government’s announcement in March that reducing the gap in life expectancy for autistic people was one of the top autism priorities in the “Think Autism” strategy governance refresh under provisions in the Autism Act 2009. How will the Minister implement those provisions?

Caroline Dinenage: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, whose incredible work over many years campaigning on behalf of autistic people up and down the country has made a magnificent difference. She is right to raise this issue. It is of course unacceptable that people with autism have poorer health outcomes, and we are determined to address this. I meet regularly with representative groups and we take on board all their comments about how they would like to see the situation improved.

Lisa Cameron: The report makes tragic reading. Some of our most vulnerable citizens are four times more likely to die prematurely than the general population, and there have been many avoidable deaths because of systemic failures. The situation cannot continue.
Let me ask the Minister three questions. First, will she look at the Scottish patient safety programme, a national programme that has been running since 2008 and is achieving good outcomes? Secondly, given that the Health and Social Care Committee has heard that learning disability nurses are very scarce, will she redouble the efforts to ensure that training for and recruitment to those roles are prioritised? Picking up symptoms early may be crucial to the prevention of morbidity. Thirdly, staff turnaround in social care is a real issue. Social care staff who know a client well, and can notice early changes such as signs of illness and report them timeously to ensure prevention, are crucial, and consistency in care is therefore critical. How will that be addressed?

Caroline Dinenage: The hon. Lady is right to raise those points. The Government are absolutely committed to reducing the number of people with learning disabilities whose deaths might have been preventable had there been different health and care interventions. That is why we set up the learning from deaths programme, and have commissioned an investigation of the issue. We are determined not only to learn from every single one of these tragic and avoidable deaths, but to share that learning with those in trusts up and down the country so that they can take a clear look at what is going on under their noses, and ensure that the terrible incidents that we have seen in the past do not happen again.
The hon. Lady was wise to raise the issue of training. It is important to have specialist practitioners, but it is also important to ensure that all healthcare staff, throughout the country, have the training that they need in order to recognise and support the needs of people with learning disabilities. That is something that we have done very successfully with dementia: we record the number of staff in the country who have received tier 1 and tier 2 training, and we are looking into how we can extend that to address the issues of people with learning disabilities.

Theresa Villiers: In learning lessons from these truly horrific cases, will the Minister commit herself to working closely with the charities that do such incredible work to support people with learning disabilities and their families?

Caroline Dinenage: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Charities and voluntary organisations all over the country do remarkable work, supporting not only people with learning disabilities but their families and their carers, for whom instances involving their health and wellbeing can be incredibly distressing.

Vincent Cable: The Minister’s statement quite properly focused on hospitals, but does she acknowledge that charities dealing with people with learning disabilities will be among the worst affected by the £400 million back pay charge? Will she try to ensure that the Government absorb that cost, so that the improvements in hospitals are not upset by a deterioration outside, in communities?

Caroline Dinenage: We are looking very carefully at the issue of sleep-ins, and are communicating with social care providers and others. It is important to recognise that we need to support not only the sector as a whole, but the many low-paid workers within it. We will present more proposals on sleep-ins shortly.

Maria Miller: The biggest challenge that many learning-disabled people have is simply making their voices heard. Their legal entitlement to advocacy is not always upheld by health professionals, who often misunderstand that entitlement. Will the Minister look into the commissioning of advocacy services, and, indeed, the understanding of the Equality Act 2010 among NHS staff, to ensure that more learning-disabled people have access to organisations such as Speakeasy Advocacy in Basingstoke, which supports more than 600 people with learning disabilities in north Hampshire, helping to give them the voice that they so badly need?

Caroline Dinenage: My right hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for equality issues in her role as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. I take on board everything that she has said, and I will certainly look more closely at the issue that she has raised.

Liz Kendall: The true disgrace is that none of this is new and we have been here before. Five years ago the Government set out their promises to tackle this appalling death by indifference, yet we have seen no progress. Can the Minister tell me how many hospitals regularly ask the four questions on  treatment of people with learning disabilities set out by Sir Mike Richards, how many clinical commissioning groups check and monitor how many health checks and health plans people have in place, and what Health Education England has done to put the training in place to try to start turning the tide on this appalling situation?

Caroline Dinenage: The hon. Lady is right that this issue was identified a few years ago. The report was commissioned in 2015 and has been in the making since then. There was a Care Quality Commission report in 2016 which concluded that bereaved families do not often experience openness and transparency. Everything we have done up until this point—the mortality review, the learning from deaths programme and all the other things we have put in place with regard to the transforming care programme and annual health checks—is geared towards addressing this very issue.

Sarah Wollaston: The learning disabilities mortality review programme sets out the stark and unacceptable health inequalities faced by those with learning disability, and I welcome the steps the Minister has set out today. May I press her further, however, on the point about workforce shortfall? What is she going to do not only about recruitment, but about retention of the vital workforce in both health and social care?

Caroline Dinenage: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the workforce in our health and social care system is absolutely fundamental to the way we look after people in our country. We must be able to attract, recruit, retain and bring back into the system people who have left it. We are currently compiling a workforce strategy jointly between Skills for Care and Health Education England, and it will be reporting later in the year.

Melanie Onn: Parents come to me all the time expressing their grave concerns about what will happen to their children with learning difficulties and disabilities if they are not around to support them. In my constituency I have had reports of instances of bullying from other people in the community, of targeting by drug dealers and of exploitation by private companies such as mobile phone providers and utility companies, and that there are difficulties accessing mental health support. If the Minister is truly keen to show the Government’s desire to improve on the current appalling state of affairs, do not early support and state responsibilities need to be looked at more closely as well?

Caroline Dinenage: The hon. Lady is right to make the point more broadly, rather than just about the healthcare outcomes for people with learning disabilities. We need to look at how we protect people more broadly, and this issue must particularly be a terrible worry for the ageing parents. I take on board what the hon. Lady said, and we will definitely feed it into the system to see what more we can do in support.

Desmond Swayne: What should the CQC be doing that it is not doing already?

Caroline Dinenage: The CQC conducted an inquiry into this issue in 2016 and has a responsibility to check local healthcare provision to ensure it is up to speed. When local trusts start publishing their learning from deaths data from June, the CQC will be able to inspect them on how they bring the data forward and to judge them on that information.

Ivan Lewis: Societies and Governments should be judged by how they treat the most vulnerable. As well as avoidable deaths of people with learning disability, we have savage cuts to services across the country, so they have no constructive positive activities to participate in, and we have a complete dearth of employment opportunities now for people with learning disabilities. I started my working life 36 years ago working with people with learning disabilities, and we made tremendous progress over a 20-year period. It is a source of tremendous sadness that we have gone backwards in the last 10 years in the support that such people and their families are receiving. It is shameful. We need a cross-Government approach and we need action, not strategies.

Caroline Dinenage: It is sad that the hon. Gentleman has sought to politicise this issue. It is nothing to do with funding cuts or cost-saving measures. We have actually invested more money into this programme. We are the first Government in the world to publish a learning from deaths programme so that healthcare trusts are held accountable and have to publish their data on people who die unnecessarily in their care. Making short-sighted party political points is therefore very unfair and does not get to the heart of the issue, which is about supporting people with learning disabilities and making sure that their health outcomes are the same as those of the population as a whole.

Mark Harper: The all-party parliamentary group on learning disability, which I have the honour to chair, will be looking at this area of policy later this year. Mencap, which provides the group’s secretariat, has a Treat Me Well campaign, which is about improving the position, and I know it is keen to work with the NHS. Drawing on some of the other questions, may I ask the Minister what she can do to get the NHS and all the providers to act with a real sense of urgency in making improvements in this regard with the speed that we would like?

Caroline Dinenage: My right hon. Friend is right to raise the Mencap report, because in many cases it reflects the recommendations that have been put forward in this particular report. The mandate to NHS England requires a reduction in the health gap between people with mental health problems, learning disabilities and autism and the population as a whole, and requests support for them to live full, healthy and independent lives. That is something that NHS England has a mandate to deliver, and we of course support it in doing that.

Karin Smyth: If it is a crime to politicise the vulnerability of some people and the Government’s cuts, I stand guilty as charged. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), what we have seen since 2013 is the complete decimation of services working together on the ground. This is a local government and  health issue locally, so may I press the Minister to tell us what action will be taken to make this happen at local level?

Caroline Dinenage: It is not about that. This is about inquiring into the deaths of people who have died in our care. Despite all the really difficult decisions we have had to make to deal with the financial challenges this country faced, which the hon. Lady’s party will be well aware of, we have made progress on this issue in terms of transforming care and the healthcare checks on people with learning disabilities, and this very report on the learning from deaths programme proves how absolutely committed we are to ensuring that not one single one of those deaths goes unrecognised or uninvestigated.

John Howell: Surely the quicker integration of the NHS with social care across the board will help to solve some of these problems. Does the Minister agree with that?

Caroline Dinenage: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The integration of health and social care services is absolutely vital, and that is why we are so delighted that we have renamed the Department as the Department of Health and Social Care. That has to be more than just a title; it has to be a statement of intent.

Catherine McKinnell: Last October, I secured a Westminster Hall debate on supporting and safeguarding adults with learning disabilities, following the horrendous murder of my constituent, Lee Irving. Following that debate, what reassurance can the Minister give me that one of the major lessons coming out of that case—that families must be involved in the decision making about a person’s care—has been learned?

Caroline Dinenage: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that case. It was a truly horrible case. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is all about making sure that we have care that is centred around the individual, and that parents’, families’ and carers’ thoughts are taken into consideration when making decisions about how we care for people.

Victoria Prentis: We can be confident that the right legal framework is now in place, with the Equality Act 2010 and the Health and Social Care Act 2012, but what further steps can the Minister take to ensure that those who work in NHS organisations are aware of them?

Caroline Dinenage: Of course it is the responsibility of individual employers to ensure that their staff are appropriately trained and competent to fulfil the responsibilities that we ask of them, but we have commissioned Health Education England, Skills for Health and Skills for Care to develop a learning disabilities core skills education and training framework, which sets out a tiered approach to that kind of training and how it needs to be improved.

Luciana Berger: This review should shame us all. If we reflect on Sir Stephen Bubb’s final reports from two years ago in 2016, following a report he wrote in 2014 when there  had been no progress, we can see that he put forward 10 recommendations. We have seen little or no progress on any of those recommendations. One of them recommended the introduction of the commissioner for learning disabilities, and we need that to happen if we are to see real progress and change. Will the Minister now take that important recommendation forward?

Caroline Dinenage: The hon. Lady is right to raise that, but I will point out that we commissioned the review to examine the situation. We are not running away from our responsibilities; we are standing up and facing them. We are allowing them to be entirely transparent and out there in the public domain for people to judge. The deaths that the report covered come from the period starting July 2016, so they are historical, but it is important that they are examined. The hon. Lady is right to mention the issue of the commissioner, and I will look at that.

Kevin Foster: While the review’s conclusions make difficult reading in some ways, it is welcome that it happened, given that it is a world first and that it gives us the chance to have this discussion. What work will be done with councils and other third sector partners on taking away some of the lessons that can be learned from the review?

Caroline Dinenage: My hon. Friend is right to say that this is the first time in the world that such a review has been done. We are the first to have a learning from deaths programme and a Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, so we take such things incredibly seriously. The whole point of the learning disabilities mortality reviews is that the information will be disseminated to local trusts so that they can make plans to avoid such disastrous, tragic incidents happening in the future.

Lilian Greenwood: The gap in life expectancy for people with learning disabilities is deeply troubling. Last week, and at Health questions earlier, the House discussed cancer screening and the need to improve screening opportunities. The Minister will know that screening participation rates among people with learning disabilities are far below those for the general population. What specific actions is she taking to address that gap?

Caroline Dinenage: The hon. Lady is right to raise the inequalities of diagnosis of conditions and illnesses for which catching them early can mean the difference between life and death. That is why we have introduced annual health checks for people with learning disabilities. They mark a huge step forward and will help to reduce recognised health inequalities and ensure that reasonably adjusted care needs are much better communicated to other NHS partners.

Chris Skidmore: As a Bristol-area MP, I thank the University of Bristol for its rigorous review, which marks a milestone in increased transparency and in setting out appalling healthcare inequalities. I note with interest that the review recommends efforts to improve awareness of the signs of sepsis and pneumonia in patients with learning disabilities in the NHS. Will the Minister reassure the House that the NHS will take up that recommendation urgently?

Caroline Dinenage: Yes. Specific work on early detection of the symptoms of sepsis, pneumonia, constipation and epilepsy and on the effective use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in urgent care settings is already under way.

Liz McInnes: The front page of the report is clearly dated December 2017, so will the Minister clarify and explain why, as she has stated today, her Department did not have sight of it prior to its publication?

Caroline Dinenage: I completely hold my hands up. I am not trying to mislead the House in any way. It is an independent document and the University of Bristol decided when it was going to be published. It was published on Friday without permission from or any kind of communication with the Department of Health and Social Care. I do not know what communication the university had with NHS England, but no information was passed to us. The beauty of having an independent document is that it can be published when the organisation sees fit and the Government will have to respond to it.[Official Report, 9 May 2018, Vol. 640, c. 8MC.]

Dr Caroline Johnson: During my career as a paediatrician, I have seen huge improvements in the care of children and young people with severe and moderate learning disability, many of whom have survived into adulthood when that would not have been the case years ago. Owing to the association between severe and moderate learning disability and other medical problems that may limit someone’s lifespan, it is unlikely to ever be equal to that of the general population, but we should always ensure that the care of the most vulnerable in society is as good as it can be, and I welcome the steps that the Minister is taking to ensure that it is. Such people are cared for jointly in hospitals and in the community, so will she confirm that hospitals and community care will work together following such reviews?

Caroline Dinenage: This is something that my hon. Friend, as a healthcare professional, obviously knows an awful lot about. She is right that a person having the ability to communicate, understand and identify when they do not feel well is important. These annual health checks, which are available to children from the age of 14 and into adulthood, are important because they enable any healthcare issues to be disseminated and communicated much more effectively between different healthcare and other providers.

Mike Amesbury: Can the Minister guarantee that future publications of such sensitive reports will be done in a timely manner and given proper parliamentary scrutiny?

Caroline Dinenage: I will certainly put that request to NHS England. It was not in our interest for the report to be published on Friday. This is an independent review, but it would have been much better for us to have had foreknowledge of its publication. We would then have brought a statement to the House. We will pass on the hon. Gentleman’s comments to NHS England.

Rachel Maclean: Sepsis has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). Is the Minister aware  that the mortality rate for sepsis in the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust has experienced a remarkable turnaround from 49% above the national average to 26% below the national average? Will she look at some of the best practice that is down to the hard work of the doctors and nurses, the awareness-raising campaign and all the other education work happening in that hospital, and disseminate it more widely to benefit such patients?

Caroline Dinenage: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. Sepsis is a silent killer. If not identified early, it can lead to life-changing implications or death. She is right that we have made great steps in addressing sepsis. Only a couple of weeks ago, we launched a new e-learning tool to help healthcare professionals better identify the symptoms of sepsis, particularly in children, so they can tackle it early.

Diana R. Johnson: The Minister has spoken a lot about being committed to improvements in this area. Does she think it is acceptable that she did not know a report in this important area was to be published on Friday? Why did she not come to make a statement today, rather than waiting to be summoned to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley)?

Caroline Dinenage: What is unacceptable is that people with learning disabilities have poorer health outcomes than the rest of the population, which is why NHS England commissioned this piece of work and why we are determined to address it.

Kate Green: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that people with learning disabilities can confidently access good quality sexual health services? What work is she doing with her counterparts in the Department for Education to ensure that young people with learning disabilities receive excellent sex and relationships education?

Caroline Dinenage: This is an important aspect, and I will get in touch with the hon. Lady with a more detailed answer to her question.

Stephen Lloyd: This is a shocking report, and its conclusions demean us all. A lot of people on both sides of the Chamber have asked the Minister and her Department to come up with some actions. Rather than just talking about it, will she commit today to coming back to the House with a specific action plan to prevent and change what has been an absolutely shocking situation for many decades?

Caroline Dinenage: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this has been a shocking situation for many decades, which is exactly why this report was commissioned so that we can learn from past errors and identify how to stop them ever happening again. There are nine recommendations in this report, and we will work with NHS England on how to adopt every single one of them.

Stephen Lloyd: Will you bring it back to the House?

Caroline Dinenage: Of course.

G4S: IMMIGRATION REMOVAL CENTRES

Diane Abbott: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the renewal of G4S’s contract to run the Brook House and Tinsley House immigration removal centres.

Victoria Atkins: The Government have agreed a short-term continuation of G4S’s contract to run the Gatwick immigration removal centres while further work is carried out to identify a long-term manager. The Home Office will launch a further, full competition later this year, after the outcome of two independent reviews. The contract for the management of Brook House and Tinsley House, which was due to expire this month, was put out for tender in November 2016. However, after careful consideration of the bids, it was decided that G4S would continue with the contract for a further two years. This will provide sufficient time to reflect on the two independent reviews’ conclusions, conduct a new procurement exercise, and mobilise the successful provider. As with any procurement process, the Home Office has undertaken a robust evaluation of all bids, supported by a comprehensive due diligence process.
I recognise that the Government have taken this decision against the backdrop of the BBC “Panorama” programme on Brook House, which was broadcast in autumn last year. The previous Home Secretary made it clear at the time that the behaviour on display from some G4S staff was utterly unacceptable and set out our expectation that G4S would take urgent action to address the serious issues the programme uncovered. G4S has put in place a comprehensive action plan and this has quickly delivered improvements at Brook House. My right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister has met G4S to review progress, and visited the two Gatwick centres on 18 January.
Detaining those who are here illegally and who refuse to leave voluntarily is key to maintaining an effective immigration system. But regardless of status, all immigration detainees must be treated with dignity and respect. Please be assured that we will always demand the highest standards from those we entrust with the safety and welfare of those in detention.

Diane Abbott: Is the Minister aware of the concern that the Government put out news of the renewal of the G4S contract on the Friday between local elections and a bank holiday? There must be a suspicion that the Government were hoping to escape scrutiny—the fact that the contract was renewed at all is an even greater scandal.
The Minister mentioned the “Panorama” programme, but is she aware of a whole list of scandals in which G4S has been involved? In 2016, the BBC’s “Panorama” programme also uncovered alleged abuse and mistreatment of youngsters at a G4S youth detention centre; in November 2017, an independent report found surging levels of violence were “unsafe”; another G4S facility, HMP Birmingham, was hit by riots in December 2016; and G4S was fined at least 100 times for breaching its  contract to run prisons between 2010 and 2016. There is also the very well-known case of father of five Jimmy Mubenga, who died under restraint on a British Airways plane while being deported. Several witnesses said he was held down in his seat for more than half an hour by G4S guards. His cries that he could not breathe were ignored until he actually stopped breathing. A 2011 inquest ruled his death unlawful. We have seen with the Windrush scandal that the public want an immigration system that is fair and efficient, and that bears down on illegal immigration, but they also want an immigration system that is humane. Many will feel that, given what people know about G4S’s record, renewing this contract, even for two years, is not commensurate with a humane system of dealing with migrants.

Victoria Atkins: I thank the right hon. Lady for the urgent question. Let me reassure her that the decision to re-award the contract was taken during purdah and so we announced this on the first available opportunity after polling day on Thursday—the announcement was made on Friday. I hope that assuages her concerns as to why this has not happened more timeously. I am very conscious that I am being scrutinised here in the House, so I do not think the Government can be accused of escaping scrutiny.
As for the re-procurement process, it is precisely because we want to ensure that the long-term contract for these centres is dealt with in the way we expect that we have put in place this short-term continuation, for a period of two years. That will enable us to consider carefully the results of the independent reviews conducted by Stephen Shaw and Kate Lampard, and then build the procurement process. At the risk of striking a tone that is unusual to hear in the Chamber, we can agree across the House that we wish to have an immigration system that respects those who abide by the rules and that treats people fairly and with dignity and respect.

Crispin Blunt: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are serious challenges in both the immigration and the prison custodial sectors, whether run publicly or privately? I wish to go immediately from here to listen to a discussion on substance misuse in prisons that is being held by the drugs, alcohol and justice cross-party parliamentary group. If, like me, my hon. Friend has read the annual report of Brook House IRC’s independent monitoring board, she will have seen that the board in no way at all came to the same conclusions about the merits of G4S as the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).

Victoria Atkins: I note that the independent monitoring board report noted the commitment of staff to the provision of a safe environment and included recommendations to improve the safeguarding of vulnerable detainees. Shortly, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration will write to the chairman of the independent monitoring board, because that board plays such an important part. It is made up of members of the public who independently review these institutions, as similar boards review institutions across other parts of the immigration and prison system. Their role is so important in ensuring that the rules and standards that we expect are maintained by those who are entrusted with such responsibility.

Joanna Cherry: The independent monitoring board also found that the use of force against people in Brook House increased by more than 160% in the two years between 2015 and 2017. Was the Home Secretary aware of that finding in the independent monitoring board’s report before he announced the renewal of G4S’s contract? If so, why did he renew it? These immigration detainees are not criminals, and there is growing anger at the Government’s policy of detaining them in detention centres without any fixed time limit. Will the Minister commit now to allowing Parliament a vote on this inhumane and unjust policy?

Victoria Atkins: The new Home Secretary has reviewed the evidence put before him and agreed with the short-term extension of the contract. We are clear that, following the two reviews that we hope will report over the next few months, we will be able to ensure that the procurement process meets the expectations of the House and of those outside it.
On G4S, as soon as the “Panorama” programme was aired, the Government set out clear expectations in our action plan. We have carried out a range of actions to meet the expectations set in that action plan, including improved training for staff and enhanced staffing levels, with recruitment and training plans in place.

Dame Cheryl Gillan: I commend the Minister for the Government’s having taken swift action following the appalling “Panorama” programme. These immigration centres contain many vulnerable people. Feltham young offenders institution became the first autism accredited penal establishment in the world, and it found that that helped greatly. Will the Minister look into the possibility of rolling out that programme, particularly across the immigration estate, so that we can develop and implement standards by which we can protect vulnerable people in a custodial environment?

Victoria Atkins: Of course, my right hon. Friend has campaigned effectively for a long time on the importance of recognising autism and how we should treat it. Stephen Shaw set out in his 2015 report his concerns about adults who were vulnerable or at risk in the custodial environment. Indeed, that is why he has been commissioned to write a second report—a follow-up review—on the welfare of vulnerable detainees. I very much look forward to reading that report and its conclusions in due course.

David Hanson: How much did the abortive tender process cost the taxpayer, and were there any bidders, other than G4S, for the initial contract when it was offered up for renewal?

Victoria Atkins: With regard to the original procurement process, due diligence was conducted, as would be expected, after the bids were received. In the light of the “Panorama” programme, further due diligence was conducted, and, as a result of further due diligence into the process, the Government have decided that the procurement process should be reopened so that all the actors in this field can take into account the two reviews that we are awaiting this year.

Giles Watling: Where there is bad practice, it is important that staff are empowered to speak out. Will my hon. Friend tell me what G4S is doing to ensure that secure whistleblowing procedures are in place?

Victoria Atkins: That is one of the requirements in the action plan that the Government set G4S after the programme. We are very clear that whistleblowers are essential to ensuring that problems are brought to light effectively and quickly. As part of the action plan, G4S has reinforced its whistleblowing policy. All staff have been issued with cards featuring telephone numbers to enable them to raise concerns confidentially, and following work with the Jill Dando Institute, G4S has trained staff to become “speak out” champions, promoting and embedding the message that whistleblowing is not just desirable, but a clear expectation when unacceptable behaviour is witnessed. In addition, there is also the introduction of body-worn cameras, which serve, I hope, to reassure the House and others that there is transparency and that, if there are allegations, we can very quickly get to the truth of them.

Alistair Carmichael: I welcome the fact that this is a time-limited renewal. The Minister will know that many of those who are detained in these centres are there following the refusal of their applications for asylum. She will have seen the report on the BBC website today where one Home Office caseworker describes that system as being “arbitrary” in its outcomes. When it comes to the point that we renew this contract, or whatever follows it after the reviews, will the Minister give us some guarantee that we will look at not just the detention but the whole system that leads people to that point?

Victoria Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, last week, the Home Secretary set out in two statements before the House his vision for immigration policy and the principles that he expects to be applied to immigration policy. Taking into account the reviews that are being conducted, I am sure that those principles will be very much at the forefront of his mind.

Desmond Swayne: What is the mode, the mean and the median time spent by the existing cohort of detainees at the Gatwick detention centres?

Victoria Atkins: I think that I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. Let me just put the matter into context: 95% of individuals liable to removal from the UK at any one time are not detained and are therefore managed in the community. With regard to the time that people spend in detention, 63% of detainees left detention in under 29 days in 2017 and 92% left within four months.

Paul Blomfield: Following the Brook House scandal, I asked the Cabinet Office whether G4S had been considered for designation as a high-risk supplier, but I was stonewalled with the answer that such information is not published. Given that what we saw at Brook House was an appalling, comprehensive and systemic management failure, will the Minister explain what constitutes high risk?

Victoria Atkins: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not privy to that set of correspondence between him and the relevant Minister. The action plan put in place with G4S was demanding. Indeed, out of that plan, a new manager was appointed, nine members of staff were dismissed and a range of measures were put in place with regards to staffing levels, body-worn cameras, training and whistleblowing procedures. The company’s drug strategy was also improved as part of the action plan to try to get to the nub of what was shown in “Panorama”, but I want to be absolutely clear that the actions shown in that programme were simply unacceptable.

James Cartlidge: In the Windrush debate, I think that there is now a growing recognition on all sides that our immigration policy needs to show that it balances humanity with a robust ability to deal with those who are here illegally. The contract with G4S was a short-term award, but does my hon. Friend agree that, when the contract is awarded on a long-term basis, those bidding must demonstrate that they understand that and can deliver it?

Victoria Atkins: Very much so. The competition will be a free and fair one, in that bidders will be expected to show that they can meet the expectations of the Government and others when it comes to quality, financial stability and price.

Andrew Slaughter: Incidents of serious violence and cover-ups in G4S-run institutions such as Medway secure training centre go back at least 15 years. Indeed, G4S sold what it called its children’s services business, which seemed like an admission of failure on its part. Why, then, would the Government give the company an extra two-year contract? What other ideas did they consider? Did they think about taking the service back in-house, as they have done in previous cases of failure by private providers?

Victoria Atkins: The hon. Gentleman talks about simply taking matters back in-house, but we have to acknowledge the complexity of providing services to people who often have vulnerabilities. When these people are in the centres, they may well be pursuing live claims on their immigration status themselves. Given the need to continue to provide these services at the standards that we expect, the view was taken that we would extend the current contract by two years, thus enabling a proper procurement process to occur in the light of the two reviews and allowing a decision on the next contract to be taken in good time and with care.

Kevin Foster: Where there is bad practice, it is of course important that staff who witness it feel empowered to speak out. How has the Minister satisfied herself that G4S has appropriate whistleblowing procedures in place to allow that to happen?

Victoria Atkins: The need for G4S drastically to improve its whistleblowing procedures was part of the action plan. As I have set out already, G4S has taken various steps, including embedding the culture of making available telephone numbers that enable people to raise their concerns confidentially and training staff to be “speak out” champions—promoting and embedding  the expectation that staff will speak out. In addition, body-worn cameras help to take the burden from people who may be worried about reporting. Of course, the independent monitoring board has an important role in ensuring that there are people who inspect and are monitoring the behaviour of the staff and organisations in this world.

Catherine West: There was a criminal investigation following the scandal highlighted by “Panorama”. Will the Minister tell us what happened following that investigation? Have people been punished? May I also press her on the question of this House having a vote, so that this country can be brought in line with other European nations where there is a 28-day statutory limit on the time for which people can be held in such facilities? Far too many people detained in such facilities should be in the community, not in detention centres.

Victoria Atkins: On the hon. Lady’s query about police investigations, allegations were passed to the police. I understand that there is one case where an investigation is ongoing. I cannot assist the House further on that, I am afraid. Indeed, given that that is the case, perhaps I should not be commenting on it anyway.
On the wider point about time limits, this is a matter that the Home Office reviews and looks into very carefully. The vast majority of people who challenge the requirement to remove them under their right to remain status are in the community already. The fact that most detainees left detention in under 29 days should, I hope, offer her some comfort, but of course we must always look at how we can improve that figure further.

Bim Afolami: The Minister will have heard from all parts of the House the shock at these revelations. Bearing that in mind, will she confirm that there have been substantial changes to the practices at Brook House since these revelations have come to light and set out what oversight the Government will have over G4S during the contract extension period?

Victoria Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for his interest. An action plan was put in place that included appointing a new manager and dismissing nine staff, enhancing staffing levels with recruitment and training plans, introducing body-worn cameras for staff to provide more transparency and assurance, refreshing and promoting whistleblowing procedures, putting in place an improved drugs strategy, and commissioning an independent review led by Kate Lampard to look at the root causes of the issues highlighted that is expected to report this summer. In addition, the Home Office monitors this continuously. Indeed, the Home Office has strengthened its staff numbers at the centres to try to help on a casework basis people who may wish to return voluntarily.

Clive Efford: G4S’s performance in how it delivers public contracts is woefully inadequate, and not only in the Prison Service. G4S runs the transport service for my local hospital. Last week, I had to go to rescue a 94-year-old relative from a discharge area full of patients who had been waiting over five hours for G4S to turn up, and this is a regular occurrence. I am a governor of a school where G4S consistently fails to deliver on the school maintenance contract. When are  the Government going to get a grip and deal with G4S, because there is something fundamentally wrong at the heart of this company?

Victoria Atkins: G4S is held to account not just by the Home Office but centrally through Cabinet Office reporting requirements. The new procurement process will provide a basis for further progress on all these issues, and the progress of G4S will continue to be monitored very closely.

Dr Caroline Johnson: Morton Hall in my constituency is an immigration removal centre facing significant challenges and issues. Will my hon. Friend update the House on what is being done to improve immigration removal centres including not just Brook House but Morton Hall?

Victoria Atkins: My hon. Friend will know of the issues in her own constituency. Morton Hall is in a slightly different category because it is run by the Prison Service and not by G4S. That reflects the fact that these are people who are being detained in a prison environment awaiting their removal. The Government take very seriously the treatment of people whose immigration status is not to their liking and who have appeals and so on in the process. The fact that the vast majority of people who are liable to removal from the UK are in the community being dealt with through alternatives to detention should, I hope, give comfort to the House.

Rupa Huq: If “Panorama” shocked the nation with its depiction of racial abuse and choking of detainees at Brook House, the collapse of Carillion like a pack of cards has exposed that the outsourcing model is failing our public services. Why are the Government persisting with this course of action, or on a sunny pre-bank holiday filled with local election results, did they think no one would notice?

Victoria Atkins: I can only assume that the hon. Lady was not in the Chamber when the shadow Home Secretary asked me that question. The answer is that the decision was taken during the purdah period, so the announcement was made on the first available day after purdah. Again, I reflect on the fact that I am standing here at the Dispatch Box being scrutinised.
The fact is that there is a role for private sector involvement in the delivery of services, as long as we ensure that it is about delivering the best public services at the best value for money. I remind the House that this is not a new thing; it did not come about in 2015 or 2017.  Private companies have been helping the Government to deliver various services since the 1990s, including under a Labour Government.

Diana R. Johnson: May I say to the Minister that this is an urgent question, not a statement that she has come to the House to make? She has been brought here to answer questions. G4S seems to be able to fail in a variety of contracts, without any consequences at all. There have been failures in prisons, electronic tagging, secure units and now immigration detention centres. When are the Government going to get a grip and sort this out?

Victoria Atkins: As I have said, the Government are awaiting the two reviews that are being conducted, and we will consider those results very carefully. The re-procurement process will be started afresh, and from that, expectations will be set and standards will have to be met.

Kate Green: rose—

John Bercow: Before I call the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), I say not for the first time, and I am sure not for the last, that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) is correct: this is indeed an urgent question, and on the principle that the House and perhaps those attending to our proceedings like to have a bit of extra information, I can vouchsafe to all present that this is the 465th urgent question that I have been pleased to grant.

Kate Green: I have to say to the Minister that a two-year extension—what she calls a “short” extension—to the contract will seem to many like a reward to G4S for its failure. If she is now reopening and rerunning the tendering process, will she take the opportunity to do that in tandem with a review of the tendering and provision of healthcare services in immigration detention centres, which seem to be woefully inadequate to meet the needs of the very vulnerable detainees who have been mentioned this afternoon?

Victoria Atkins: May I explain the reason why two years has been settled upon? The Home Office has taken the view that that is the minimum period required realistically to revisit the specification, to run a full and legally compliant procurement process, to complete all the relevant governance processes and to mobilise the new services. That timetable is not unusual for a procurement of this sort of value. I will ask the Immigration Minister to write to her on the question about healthcare.

Point of Order

Dame Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you could help me with a situation that has arisen in Buckinghamshire and therefore may be of concern to you.
We were all delighted when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) was promoted to the Home Office and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) took over at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. However, that has coincided with the potential reorganisation of local government in Buckinghamshire. Because it is quite hotly contested between having one unitary authority or two local authorities, notices have gone out to ask constituents to feed into the Secretary of State their feelings about the “minded to” decision that he announced.
Unfortunately, the email address given out by the Ministry and printed in all the leaflets that have been distributed throughout the county was based on the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove. We were assured that the address would remain open until 25 May, when the decision is due, but despite the assurances from the Ministry, it appears that constituents trying to put in their representations are now getting a bounce-back message saying that the email has address has been closed. There are no instructions as to who they should now contact and no information given as to why the address has closed. That means that constituents’ views are not getting through to the Ministry on this matter, which, as I know you appreciate, is very important.
What can we do about that? Is there any way we can ask a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and confirm that the email address will be reopened, or can we ensure that we get an extended period, so that we can put to rights this aberration whereby people have been asked for their opinions, but the wherewithal of giving that opinion to the Ministry has been unilaterally withdrawn without any notice?

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order, and for her characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of her intention to raise it. This certainly sounds rum, and it is indeed a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. I am very familiar with the issue because, as she suggests, it is of course a matter of concern to my constituents and to hers, as well as to those in other Buckinghamshire constituencies.
I think the effect of the right hon. Lady raising this matter on the Floor of the House is that the gravamen of her concern will be speedily communicated to the new Secretary of State, and an appropriate change must be made. Technology can be very helpful, but if it is dysfunctional or inflexible, it does not aid but obstruct, which cannot be allowed to happen. If people have been told that they have a certain period in which to get across their views by a convenient means, such a means must be available, and if it ceases to be available, it must be restored.
I do not want to tease the right hon. Lady. I have known her a very long time, so I can probably get away with a bit, although she looks a bit doubtful on that score. I just want to say to the right hon. Lady, whom I have known for a very long time—she has been my county colleague for over two decades—that even though she is now a dame, and therefore even more illustrious than she used to be, she is very much in touch, grounded in her constituency and well aware of these matters. That is in stark contrast, I must admit, to one of my great historical parliamentary heroes, Edmund Burke. I remember that I used to rhapsodise about Burke, until Tony Benn said to me, “John, I wouldn’t overdo it if I were you. Burke may have been a great man, but his visits to his constituency were by way of being an annual pilgrimage.” By contrast, the right hon. Lady seems to know what is being said on her watch. I do not know whether she is happy with my answer to her point of order, but that is the answer she is getting.

Dame Cheryl Gillan: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am most grateful, and I am glad to have given you the opportunity to wax lyrical about one of your heroes. I hope that this will lead to the reopening of the email address, and that the Department will take note so that our constituents can get their message through. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: The right hon. Lady’s hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) is gesticulating from a sedentary position to the effect that he is communicating the thrust of this exchange to the Department now. What a whizz kid the hon. Gentleman is. I am most impressed. [Interruption.] They both look frightfully happy with the product of their endeavours this afternoon.
If there are no further points of order, we now come to the ten-minute rule motion, for which the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) has been so patiently waiting.

PROTECTION OF POLLINATORS

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Ben Bradley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the protection of pollinators; and for connected purposes.
This Bill would place a duty on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in consultation with local authorities, to bring forward a mechanism for and plan to deliver a national network of pollinator corridors containing spaces rich in wildflower habitat. It would also encourage public authorities to seek opportunities to contribute to the development and implementation of pollinator corridors. There has certainly been a bit of a buzz about bees and insects in recent years. That was a nice one to start with, and I may reach something of a crescendo with the puns later.
Wild pollinators include bees, butterflies, moths, flies and various other insects such as beetles and wasps. More than two thirds of Britain’s pollinators are in decline, including many species of bumblebee, butterfly and moth. Indeed, 35 of the UK’s bee species are currently under threat of extinction. Although they make the headlines most often, it is not just bees that are struggling: 76% of UK butterfly species and 66% of UK moth species are also in decline. The public are very concerned about that decline—indeed, as many colleagues will attest, they often write to their MPs about this issue. In terms of the volume of emails on a specific campaign, this issue and other animal welfare concerns are always among the most popular. I am sure we have all experienced the enthusiastic campaigns of groups such as Buglife and the Wildlife Trusts at our respective party conferences.
Pollinators are facing unprecedented challenges, including climate change, intensive farming, pests and diseases, pesticide use and urban growth. They need food, water, shelter and nesting areas as well as the ability to roam far and wide—as they would naturally, without the barriers placed in their way as a result of urban sprawl. As the concrete jungle grows, their natural habitat inevitably shrinks.
Dramatic losses of wildflower-rich habitat and the fragmentation of the remaining protected spaces are some of the main threats to the survival of many pollinators. A significant further decline in their population would be a disaster for the UK: devastating for our farmers and our food sustainability. It would also have a huge impact on a wide range of businesses that rely on these insect-pollinated crops; our cider producers and food manufacturers, for example, would be hit hard.
Insect pollinators benefit both the yield and the quality of many crops. Studies suggest that their activity is worth nearly £700 million to UK food production annually—equivalent to 13% of the value of our agricultural produce. There is no overall assessment of the current impact of the decline on crop production, but we know that a lack of pollinators is already costing apple growers, for example, millions of pounds each year. A further decline would also devastate our wildflower population and change our biodiversity forever. It is important to note that creating wildlife sanctuaries and protecting our green spaces will not only support our bees and  insects; it will also have other positive outcomes for everything else. It will have a beneficial impact on our local communities, and on our individual mental health and wellbeing. That is as significant—if not more so—in deprived areas as in our leafy suburbs. Green spaces are places of tranquillity and provide a space away from the hustle, bustle and stresses of modern life—the more the merrier, in my view.
I met my hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently to discuss the protection of pollinators, which, I was pleased to hear, is a priority for the Government. I was pleased to hear about the positive work under way on the national pollinator strategy—an approach setting out how the Government, beekeepers, conservation groups, farmers and researchers can work towards common goals together.
A 2016 report on the implementation of the strategy highlighted positive progress across its actions, including on habitat creation, public engagement, protecting honey bee health and improving our understanding of this issue. Given the importance and value of pollinators, it is right that we should discuss whether there is a need for further legislation to work alongside the strategy and the powers currently in place. The national pollinator strategy is a 10-year plan, which was published in November 2014. It sets out the Government’s commitment to playing a leading role in improving the status of the 1,500 or so pollinating insects in England. The strategy is an important step in protecting bees and other insects.
It is also important to recognise that current legislation includes the provision to regulate the use of pesticides and provide protection for bees and our most threatened species. Those are all positive steps, but I still believe that more could be done. The strategy covers key issues such as supporting pollinators on farmland and supporting bees and insects across towns, cities and the countryside, but it does not emphasise or plan to support pollinator pathways and corridors. Government support so far has focused on temporary habitats and patches of protected countryside. Although those provide some benefits to pollinators, they do not provide the variety of flora or the nesting habitats required for them to thrive.
The best habitats are fragmented throughout the UK, and insects are still confined to small areas—pollinators are not free to fly as they naturally would, but are often stuck in small pockets without the freedom to roam far and wide. That is especially problematic when we develop on land that does not have the connections and pathways to allow insects and wildlife to move to new areas. Almost a fifth of these habitats have been lost. Independent scientific reviews have identified the loss of wildflower-rich habitats as the likely primary cause of the recorded decline in the diversity of wild bees and other pollinating insects. When we develop on green space, too often we lose the local wildlife. This is where the Bill and pollinator corridors come in.
Charities such as Buglife have been working on solutions to our pollinator problems. One option is something it has called “B-Lines”. B-Lines are a series of insect pathways running through our countryside and towns. Along them stretch a series of wildflower-rich habitat stepping stones, providing support for these species and others. They are effectively a road network for insects. B-Lines provide a framework in which to target large-scale habitat restoration, as well as small-scale pollinator resources. The framework helps to encourage landowners,  businesses and the public to get involved locally. Going forward, the B-Lines network would ideally be identified within local plan frameworks to ensure a more joined-up approach, so that local authorities, developers, landowners and managers, and other partners, can work together to support pollinator corridors. Co-ordinated habitat restoration will help to ensure that we develop pollinator-friendly landscapes more efficiently and quickly.
The fragmentation of habitats presents a significant threat to species, as they find it increasingly difficult to colonise new areas, particularly as our climate changes. Where there is more continuous habitat, species can spread faster.
Modelling has demonstrated that targeting support at grassland habitat restoration and creation, and creating a channelled pattern of habitats is the most effective way of promoting species dispersal. The Bill will encourage local authorities to reference and support pollinators within their local plans and local environmental strategies. It will help to ensure the increased delivery of the national pollinator strategy locally and importantly it will promote the B-Lines network as a priority for action.
There are some positive case studies which show that this approach can be successful. On the banks of the River Derwent, east of York, a landowner was inspired by the B-Lines idea and proposed the creation of a new wildflower-rich floodplain meadow. The landowner worked with Buglife to turn a six hectare arable field, where flooding was an issue, into a large wildflower-rich habitat, which acted as a new stepping stone for pollinators on the B-Lines network. In addition, it helps to reduce sediment leaching into the river system. It shows that increasing our wildflower networks can have multiple environmental benefits.
In Kent, commercial orchards within the B-Lines network near Maidstone have been increasing pollinator habitat by changing mowing regimes to promote wildflowers between fruit trees. This is a win-win situation: a simple change that results in increasing habitat for wild pollinators and also helps to increase crop yields.
In the north-west of England one of the B-Line partners, Cumbria Wildlife Trust, is working with Highways England to focus on key stretches of the A66 and A595, aiming to use parts of the highways estate and other land to support pollinators and create B-Lines, increasing wildflower-rich habitat and helping to reduce the fragmentation of existing wildflower-rich areas.
B-Lines also provide an opportunity for Government Departments and agencies to prioritise work for pollinators. Buglife is working with both the Ministry of Justice and the Environment Agency to identify key sites, including prisons, seawalls and floodplains, where wildflower habitat creation could be taken forward. I hope that the Bill will place renewed emphasis on that work. The Bill asks the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to bring forward a mechanism to deliver B-Lines, including a national map of pollinator corridors, which will in turn encourage local authorities to act to support pollinators. Local authorities are of course best placed to know their local environment, understand specific local challenges and the needs of the local population.
Protecting pollinators involves action by many different groups, including large-scale and small-scale farmers. Farmers have played an important role so far. They are  the custodians of much of our natural environment and have generally worked hard to support bees and insects. I want to recognise the work that farmers have played in supporting our pollinators and their crucial role in the success of pollinator corridors, as well as the importance of protecting wildlife for our agriculture and food supply too. Protecting pollinators does not need to be an onerous commitment for farmers, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or local authorities. It is an example of an evidence based approach with all-round benefits that need not consume huge resources to deliver an impact.
Local Authorities already have a duty to conserve biodiversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. The national planning policy framework states that plans should include a strategy for enhancing the natural, built and historic environment and support for nature improvement areas. The Bill is another step towards encouraging local authorities to explicitly reference pollinators within local plans. I am pleased to confirm that it will also involve minimal expenditure for local authorities.
Helping bees and other insects can be easy, as the case studies I mentioned have demonstrated. Whether it is changing the patterns of cutting local verges, decreasing grass cutting in remote areas or working with local charities and housing developers to encourage pollinators in our urban spaces, the Bill does not seek to place a financial commitment on local authorities. Buglife and Friends of the Earth have published a paper that looks at developing local pollinator action plans. The Bill is another way to advance those plans.
You will like this bit, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to end on a high. We have an opportunity to make a beeline for the protection and growth of our pollinator population, which I am sure colleagues will flock to support like moths to a flame. DEFRA has been a hive of activity and positive announcements in recent months, and this could add further to their success. There has been a lot of talk and some positive steps. I do not believe that we have been just bumbling along. We must ensure that there is a sting in the tail. Further action must be taken. I had a joke about calling somebody “Honey”, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will take it out as Mr Speaker has left the Chamber.
Having spoken to colleagues, I know that there is widespread support across the House for the protection of pollinators and for the idea of pollinator corridors. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir Roger Gale, Sir Oliver Letwin, Dr Matthew Offord, Andrew Selous, Neil Parish and Ben Bradley present the Bill.
Ben Bradley accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October, and to be printed (Bill 206).

THE SPEAKER'S ABSENCE

Ordered,
That the Speaker have leave of absence on Wednesday 9 May to attend the funeral of the Right honourable the Lord Martin of Springburn, former Speaker of this House.—(Andrea Leadsom.)

SECURE TENANCIES (VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE) BILL

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee.
New Clause 1

Duty to review cooperation between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

‘(1) By the end of the period of six months, beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review into the potential for future cooperation between local authorities in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in relation to the provisions of this Act.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider how it may be possible to extend the provisions of the Act to ensure that applications for secure tenancies in cases of domestic abuse—
(a) from Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland may be considered by local authorities in England;
(b) from England, Scotland or Northern Ireland may be considered by local authorities in Wales;
(c) from England, Wales or Northern Ireland may be considered by local authorities in Scotland; and
(d) from England, Wales or Scotland may be considered by local authorities in Northern Ireland.
(3) The review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(4) In this section, “local authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, the council of a district, county or London borough, the Common Council of the City of London and the Council of the Isles of Scilly;
(b) in relation to Wales, the council of a county or county borough;
(c) in relation to Scotland, the council of a district or city;
(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, the council of a district, borough or city.”—(Melanie Onn.)
Brought up, and read the First time.

Melanie Onn: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1,in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after “tenant)” insert
“and regardless of whether the qualifying tenancy is in the jurisdiction of another local authority”.
Amendment 2,line25, at end insert—
“(2BA) A local housing authority which grants an old-style secure tenancy under subsection (2A) or (2B) has discretion to decide whether or not the maximum rent for the old-style secure tenancy should be determined according to regulation B13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/213) as amended by the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/ 3040).”
Amendment 3,page1,line25, at end insert—
“(2BA) A private registered provider of social housing or a housing trust which is a charity that grants a tenancy of a dwelling house in England must grant an old-style secure tenancy if—
(a) the tenancy is offered to a person who is or was a tenant of some other dwelling-house under a qualifying tenancy (whether as the sole tenant or as a joint tenant); and
(b) the provider is satisfied that—
(i) the person or a member of the person’s household is or has been a victim of the domestic abuse carried out by another person; and
(ii) the new tenancy is granted for reasons connected with that abuse and such a private registered provider of social housing or housing trust which is a charity shall be considered a person who satisfies the landlord condition under section 80 for the purpose of granting an old-style secure tenancy in accordance with this subsection.”

Melanie Onn: We are here to discuss a short but important Bill. It has been introduced by the Government to plug the gaps left by ministerial incompetence in the progression of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Despite the Opposition’s warnings, the Government failed to listen, so we are here today to remedy the situation as fully as possible for victims of domestic violence.
In Committee, we tabled an amendment to try to secure additional guidance and training for local authority staff who are expected to make decisions about domestic violence cases. In response, the Minister talked about the high quality of Southwark Council’s homelessness team as an example of the Government already providing enough support. I am convinced that Southwark Council is doing an excellent job, but it has taken part in a number of pilot schemes, so surely the Minister recognises that it will not be representative of the whole country, particularly as it has been allocated well over £1 million to deal with the new burdens that have been introduced under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. Although there are good reasons for the extra funding, it allows the council to employ specialised officers who are responsible for specific areas of homelessness and to provide an holistic approach to those presenting as homeless.
However, if we look at another city elsewhere in the country—York—we find that it has been allocated just over one twentieth of the resources provided to Southwark and it does not have enough money even to hire one experienced housing officer, never mind a specified officer to deal with domestic abuse cases. The truth is that the quality of domestic abuse homelessness provision varies massively from authority to authority, and getting the proper care is far too much of a postcode lottery.
Although I am not introducing an amendment on this issue today, I hope that the Government consider the reports from charities such as Women’s Aid about the difficulty that some women face when trying to explain their situation to local councils. There are cases of women being told to go back to the perpetrator or to come back when the situation got worse. I think we can all agree that that is completely unacceptable. The Minister should look into those reports and take steps to improve the quality of advice in boroughs and districts where problems have been identified with the treatment of domestic abuse victims.

Maria Miller: I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, but does she not welcome the fact that the Government are introducing an extra £17 million to help more than 40 local authorities to provide better services? The Government really have made this a priority; does she not welcome that?

Melanie Onn: As I made clear, we are not tabling an amendment on this, but I urge the Minister to consider the reports from Women’s Aid to make sure that across the country there is parity of service for all victims of domestic violence.

Wera Hobhouse: There is obviously consensus that the Bill is a step in the right direction, and we welcome it, but are there not other barriers to secure tenancies—for example, if debt was incurred in the previous tenancy? Will social landlords have to accept these women? A lot of advice needs to be given, and that is why it is important that the extra services and help are provided.

Melanie Onn: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I agree: sufficient support should be available across the whole country. Very often, individuals will present with unique circumstances, and legislation cannot provide for each and every eventuality, but making sure that the appropriate training is in place across the country will go some way towards assisting those individuals.

Toby Perkins: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend is saying about the postcode lottery. When I raised that on Second Reading, the Minister said that I was complaining about an issue that did not exist, but it has become clear from subsequent meetings with Women’s Aid that different local authorities are applying very different interpretations of the rights in terms of housing allocations and local connections, so I support her efforts to ensure more consistency across the piece.

Melanie Onn: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and concur with his remarks. Other issues raised by hon. Members have prompted assurances during the Bill’s progress, and I take the Minister at her word and hope the Government live up to her words.
New clause 1 would ensure that cross-border travel does not negatively affect the rights in the Bill. People who flee domestic abuse end up in all parts of the country, but an unevenness in legislation means that domestic abuse victims in the devolved nations are subject to different rights and protections. The new clause seeks to protect the rights of domestic abuse victims countrywide and ensure that travelling from one council area in one country to another in another country does not impede the rights of a domestic abuse victim.
Domestic abuse victims often have little time to plan when fleeing an abusive partner and are unlikely to think that a move to their nearest large town or city might change their circumstances as a victim of domestic abuse, yet that is the reality in places such as Chester and Wrexham. It should be unequivocal that the rights in the Bill travel with the victims. In Committee, the Minister informed me that this matter would be brought up at the devolved Administration roundtable last month in the hope of agreeing a memorandum of understanding between the Administrations.

John Redwood: I understand what the hon. Lady is trying to do, but I do not think her new clause does it, because it says that the Government should “review” the situation. What powers would she want the Government to take to override devolved Governments?

Melanie Onn: The purpose of the new clause is not to override the devolved Administrations, which is why it calls for a review. If the right hon. Gentleman listens to the remainder of my speech, perhaps it will clarify things for him.
I am pleased to see action to improve cross-border collaboration, but I have not seen any such memorandum. In any event, domestic abuse victims need more than a memorandum of understanding, and we have the opportunity to give them just that right now. I am aware of the sensitivities surrounding devolution, so the new clause does not seek to impose Parliament’s desires on the devolved Administrations, but would instead commit the Government to publishing a review of the domestic abuse policies of each Administration and to working towards ensuring that victims of domestic abuse are treated equally when they move from one nation to another.

Robert Syms: Has the hon. Lady written to the Scottish Parliament or Administration, or indeed to the Welsh Government, to ask whether they approve of her new clause?

Melanie Onn: I have relied on the good offices of the Minister, who is in government, to undertake the duties of consultation with the devolved Administrations, which was due to take place, I believe, on 19 April, and we await the distribution of a note on the outcome of those meetings, which was requested but which I have not had sight of as yet.

Heather Wheeler: It was emailed to the hon. Lady and all Committee members this morning.

John Healey: Just in time!

Melanie Onn: I thank the Minister.

Heather Wheeler: It is dated 8 May. It was sent over the bank holiday weekend.

Melanie Onn: That is an opportune time for materials to be sent, as we found out during the urgent questions this morning. I am sorry I have not seen the note. I am grateful that the Minister has provided it, but it is incredibly unfortunate it was not provided sooner, because the information might well have informed the debate. [Interruption.] The Minister may well wish to provide it to me right now, but I am in the middle of my speech and it would be difficult for me to speak and read at the same time—as good as I am at multi-tasking!
Amendment 1 adds a requirement for a secure tenancy to be offered when domestic abuse victims apply for rehousing in a local authority area different from the one in which they previously had their secure tenancy. In Committee, the Minister said that the amendment was ineffective because the requirement was already provided for in the Bill, but there remains some unease about the current wording. The amendment would provide peace of mind, as prescribed by the Government back in 2016. We must not forget that the sector has been waiting for two years, having been assured by the Government that the requirement would be covered by the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that we do not end up in the same position again if it turns out that the Bill does not guarantee domestic abuse victims secure tenancies if they end up crossing local authority boundaries.

Ruth George: I am sure that my hon. Friend, like me, welcomes the fact that tenants who have suffered domestic abuse will be offered secure tenancies, but does she share my concern about evidence given to the Work and Pensions Committee that when local authorities apply to the Department for Work and Pensions for benefits to support a victim of domestic abuse, they are frequently told that it will be several weeks before a decision can be made, and victims are returning to perpetrators because they cannot be guaranteed the funds that would secure their secure housing?

Melanie Onn: That is an important point, and I hope that the Minister will take it on board. The issue needs to be dealt with on a cross-Government basis. The Minister has given repeated assurances that she is engaged in conversation with representatives of other Departments, but there certainly should not be any Government policies that discourage victims of domestic violence from leaving the perpetrators of that violence.
Two thirds of all domestic abuse victims who present themselves at refuges come from outside the local area. We know that housing insecurity is a major reason for the fact that too many victims stay with their partners. The amendment is important, because this issue affects far too many of the domestic abuse victims whom we are trying to help today for us to leave things to chance. For the sake of absolute clarity, I ask the Minister again to accept it. I assure Conservative Members that this is not a matter of policy or politics, but a matter of good practice.
Amendment 2 would ensure that victims of domestic abuse do not have to pay extra charges as a result of the bedroom tax if they are provided with a secure tenancy that incorporates a spare room. There are particularly good reasons why the Government must see sense when considering whether to apply the tax to victims of domestic violence. Victims face all sorts of barriers to leaving abusive partners, and the sad impact is that one in five spends more than 10 years living with an abusive partner. That statistic applies only to women who are able to leave: as we all know, countless women never manage to leave their abusive partners, and every week two women are killed by a partner or ex-partner. That is why we need to knock down as many of the barriers as possible.
The amendment would help to remove some of the financial pressure on people fleeing domestic violence, and will ensure that no one who is considering leaving an abusive relationship has to worry about the extra burden that the bedroom tax could add to their costs. It is a vital amendment, because domestic violence victims often have limited means, and may not be able to take jobs that would enable them to provide for themselves and their families. Many domestic violence victims have been subject to financial abuse, being forced to quit their jobs and give their money to their abusive partners, and having little control over their own finances. Domestic abuse victims need help, not a cruel and unnecessary tax over which they have no control. I plead with the Government to make an exception to their bedroom tax, and provide the help and support that domestic abuse victims desperately need.
Amendment 3 would ensure that those in housing association properties are given the same rights to secure tenancies as those in council housing. In Committee,  I was concerned about the Minister’s seeming lack of appreciation of the variety of council housing available. While I accept that some housing associations fulfil different functions in society from councils providing housing, a number of them represent the sole social housing provision in a local authority. In Committee, the Minister said that
“local authorities and housing associations are very different entities, which are subject to different drivers and challenges.”––[Official Report, Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) [Lords] Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2018; c. 30.]
If someone is a resident of Wakefield, their social housing is managed by the Wakefield and District housing association, which exists to manage the local authority’s housing needs and assets, whereas my own local authority underwent a full stock transfer, with tenancies transferring as per council tenancies. Many housing associations in this country have extremely similar drivers and challenges to council-managed housing, and many people in areas such as Wakefield still think of their housing association house as a council house. This amendment seeks to ensure that such victims of domestic abuse in areas such as Wakefield and North East Lincolnshire are given the same rights and protections as those in council housing.
The Minister has said that the amendment would result in private sector landlords having to operate two different systems, but the Bill as it stands could create two different sets of rights for domestic abuse victims, depending on how their local authority decided to meet its housing needs. I am sure that everyone will agree that it cannot be right that a domestic abuse victim who ends up in Wakefield is afforded fewer rights under this Bill than one who ends up in Leeds. We must guarantee that the rights of domestic abuse victims do not vary across the country.

Heather Wheeler: Before responding to the specific amendments, I would like to say a few words about a number of the issues that arose in Committee. Also, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) did not get that original letter; I will pass it over to her in a second.
The issue of doctors charging fees for letters of evidence of domestic abuse was first raised in the other place and was raised again on Second Reading and in Committee in the House. In my response, I said that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, had written to the Department of Health and Social Care to raise peers’ concerns about this issue, and following our discussions I can now inform hon. Members that the Department has agreed to include in the remit for the negotiation on changes to the GP contract for 2019-20 stopping GPs charging victims of domestic abuse for the provision of letters or notes of evidence of abuse. This is a negotiation process, so the Department cannot guarantee that the General Practitioners Committee will agree to waive the fee for these services; however, I am sure Members will agree that this is a positive step forward.
I am also aware that concerns have been raised in this House and the other place about a lack of consistency in training for local authority staff to support victims of domestic abuse. I spoke at length in Committee about the new homelessness code of guidance and the emphasis it places on local authorities ensuring that local specialist  training on domestic abuse is made available to frontline staff and managers. I also spoke about the funding the Department has provided to the National Homelessness Advice Service and the National Practitioner Support Service over recent years to ensure that such training is put in place. I do not want to repeat myself, but I am very pleased that I can update hon. Members about a new initiative that the Department is funding: the London training academy is being delivered by Southwark Council and will provide training for frontline housing options staff and apprentices; people can apply to go there from any council.
As part of the training, Solace Women’s Aid is providing domestic abuse champions training to 440 housing staff, and that is the figure across London alone. The focus of the training will be on ensuring housing teams understand the impact of domestic abuse, are clear about their roles in supporting victims and survivors, and are able to refer them to the specialist support they need. Again, I am sure hon. Members will agree that this is a very positive development, and that it demonstrates our commitment to ensure that local authority staff are properly equipped to support victims of domestic abuse and to respond appropriately and sensitively to their needs. I am sure, too, that hon. Members will agree that this is really good news and that the London training academy will provide a model, working with Solace, for frontline staff for how such difficult and sensitive cases should be handled. We would like to see that model filter through to all local authorities.

Wera Hobhouse: Women’s refuge places across my constituency, and those other places where women go in the first place, are still very difficult to find. Does the Minister accept that if funding is not provided throughout the whole supported housing sector, the Bill will be doomed to fail?

Heather Wheeler: Sadly, I think the hon. Lady has misunderstood what the Bill is about. Funding for refuges and other supported housing will be dealt with by 2020 in a different vehicle.
New clause 1 calls for a review into the potential for co-operation between local authorities in England and local authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to include consideration of the scope to extend the provisions of the Bill to apply across the UK. I entirely understand that there will be situations in which someone wishes to escape from one part of the UK to another to get away from an abusive relationship, perhaps to put a safe distance between themselves and their abusive partner, or to move back to where their family and support networks are. I sympathise with the broad intention behind this proposal to increase co-operation between England and the devolved Administrations, and I appreciate that there will be strong support for it. This issue was raised in Committee and also during the passage of the Bill through the Lords. However, I do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate vehicle to achieve that co-operation.
Nor would it be appropriate or necessary to seek to examine the possibility of extending the Bill to make changes to the legislation covering social tenancies in the devolved nations. I do not need to remind hon. Members that housing is a devolved matter. That means that it is for local authorities—or the Housing Executive  in the case of Northern Ireland—and social landlords in each part of the UK to decide whether to allow access to social housing and what type of tenancy to grant, in accordance with the law that operates in that country.

Sarah Champion: It sounds as though the Minister has set her face against amendment 1. Would she consider issuing guidance to local authorities on this issue?

Heather Wheeler: That will certainly be part of the package, yes. I will read out the letter as well, because that is the killer punch.
It is likely that most victims who flee from one part of the UK to another to escape domestic abuse and who are in need of housing would apply to a local authority for assistance on the basis that they were homeless. Homelessness legislation will provide a safety net for victims fleeing domestic abuse, even when they flee across national borders, but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own homelessness legislation. That means that there may be differences of approach in accordance with the requirements of each devolved area. For example, local authorities in Wales, as in England, may discharge their duty to rehouse using the private rented sector.
The purpose of the Bill is to remove an impediment that might prevent someone who suffers domestic abuse from leaving their abusive situation in England when the provisions under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 come into force. The Act applies only to England. A victim of abuse in another part of the UK will not face the same impediment to fleeing their situation for fear of losing their lifetime tenancy. For example, if someone in Scotland were to flee to another council district within Scotland, the second local authority would grant them a lifetime tenancy if and when they were rehoused.

John Redwood: When I asked the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) whether there was a way of overriding the devolved Administrations, she did not seem to understand the question properly, so I am glad that the Minister is explaining that that cannot be done. It is interesting that the Opposition’s amendment 3 expressly states that it applies only to England; whoever drafted their amendments probably did understand the point that the Minister is making.

Heather Wheeler: Parliamentary drafting is not an easy task, which is why people with greyer hair than mine do the job and I do not. I thank my right hon. Friend for making the situation quite clear.
The commencement of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 does not change the situation. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to include a duty in the Bill—which applies in England only—to consider the potential for amending legislation in other parts of the UK. Parliament has already decided that this area of law should be devolved, so it does not seem right to have an amendment that appears to assume that the Secretary of State has some responsibility for it in relation to the devolved Administrations. Clearly, victims of domestic abuse seeking to move from one part of the UK to another is a common issue in which all parts of  the UK have an interest. However, owing to the differences in housing legislation across England and the devolved Administrations, a UK-wide provision in a Bill that is based on an Act that applies to England only is not the correct approach—I am getting to the nub of things now.
During the passage of the Bill in the other place, my hon. Friend the Minister gave a commitment to raise with colleagues in the devolved Administrations the concerns that have been expressed. I can confirm that Lord Bourne met his counterparts in the devolved Administrations on 19 April, and I am pleased to inform Members that he has since written to me to let me know that the devolved Administrations were supportive of the Bill. They have committed to reviewing the impact of the Bill once it comes into force and to let us know about any issues or concerns for victims of domestic abuse should they arise. The letter states: “I am pleased to be able to inform you that the devolved administrations were supportive of the Bill and could find nothing in it to concern them. This is because they took the view that the Bill had no impact on the ability of social landlords to continue to grant tenancies in their own countries, and they will review the impact of the Bill, together with officials.” I think that that says it all.
On a more technical note, new clause 1 would not work as currently drafted, because social housing is provided not through local authorities in Northern Ireland but through the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. For that and all the other reasons I have given, I do not consider the new clause to be appropriate or necessary, and I ask that it be withdrawn.
Amendment 1 aims to ensure that the requirement to grant a lifetime tenancy—should a new tenancy be offered—would still apply where the victim of domestic abuse applies to another local authority district to be re-housed. I sympathise entirely with the motivation behind the amendment, and I well understand that victims of domestic abuse may wish or indeed need to put a considerable distance between themselves and their abuser. The Bill is intended to protect all lifetime tenants who are victims of domestic abuse, not only those who need to move from their current home to escape abuse, but those who have already fled from their home. I entirely agree that it is vital that the Bill protects victims who have applied for housing assistance in another local authority district. That is partly why we amended the Bill in the other place to extend it to apply to those who, having fled their homes, may have lost their tenancy or their security of tenure.
We recognise that that may be particularly problematic for those who seek assistance in another local authority area, and I assure the shadow Minister that the Bill has been drafted with that issue in mind. Where the Bill refers to “a local housing authority”, it means that it applies to any and to every local authority in England, just as in the same way it applies to any tenant who has a lifetime local-authority or housing-association tenancy of a dwelling house anywhere in England and who needs to move from that house to escape domestic abuse. That is standard in legislative drafting practice, so local authorities should have no difficulty in understanding what it means. Any amendment to spell that out in the Bill would therefore be unnecessary and redundant.

Toby Perkins: I welcome the reassurance that the Minister has just given us, but the fact is that different local authorities understand the current legislation and their responsibilities to people fleeing domestic violence in different ways, so what possible harm would it do to include amendment 1 so that there would be no cause for any misunderstanding in future?

Heather Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is trying to entice me down a road that I will not go down. This is parliamentary legislative drafting, and there should be no reason whatsoever for local authorities to misunderstand the situation, which will obviously also be made clear in guidance. However, I thank him for giving me the opportunity to say it again. We will be issuing guidance to assist local authorities to implement the fixed-term tenancy provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016. To manage concerns, we can certainly look to ensure that it explains the provisions in this Bill as well, including making it absolutely clear that it applies where the victim is seeking to be re-housed in a different local authority district from the one in which her existing tenancy is situated.

Wera Hobhouse: The Minister is being generous in giving way. Under the 2016 Act, housing associations can choose whether to offer a flexible tenancy. What advice will the Government give to housing associations that will not have the same obligation to give a lifetime tenancy if a tenancy moves to another housing association property?

Heather Wheeler: That is a slightly different clause, which I will come to in a moment. With that in mind, and taking into account the fact that amendment 1 is unnecessary for the reasons I have given, I therefore ask for it not to be pressed.
On amendment 2, I appreciate the concern of hon. Members to prevent further stress and anxiety. Survivors of domestic abuse have already suffered experiences that most of us here can only imagine. However, I do not think the amendment is necessary. The number of households likely to be granted a tenancy under this Bill that would lead them to under-occupy a property, and as a result become subject to removal of the spare room subsidy, is likely to be very small indeed.
Allocating a property that is too big for a tenant’s needs would not be in the interests of the tenant or the landlord. The tenant, if eligible for housing benefit, would see their eligible rent reduced, which would not be in the tenant’s or the landlord’s interest. It would also not be the best use of scarce social housing.

Ruth George: Does the Minister recognise that children who have been through situations of domestic abuse are often severely traumatised and need new secure housing to be able to find their own way again? That might lead them to have problems sleeping at night, and it may therefore be more helpful for the family’s recovery if the younger children have separate bedrooms, not as prescribed in the under-occupancy legislation.

Heather Wheeler: The hon. Lady brings up an interesting fact that was not discussed in Committee. I will address the discretionary powers that local authorities have, which might help her with an answer.
Allocating a property that is too big is not necessarily in the tenant’s interest or the landlord’s interest, and it certainly is not the best use of scarce social housing. Our 2012 allocations guidance clearly recognises that local authorities, when framing the rules that determine the size of property to allocate to different households and in different circumstances, will want to take account of removal of the spare room subsidy.
Where the victim wishes to remain in her own property after the perpetrator has left or been removed, we expect that in most cases it would not result in an under-occupation charge—domestic abuse normally occurs between partners who share a bedroom, so removing the perpetrator would not normally result in under-occupation. Furthermore, if there is any risk it could lead to a victim becoming subject to the under-occupation charge, it will be open to the authority to offer a new tenancy in another, smaller property, or to offer a similar one and take into account the next matter.
In the small number of cases in which, for whatever reason, a local authority grants a tenancy under the Bill in a property that has more bedrooms than the tenant needs, it is open to the tenant to apply for a discretionary housing payment to cover any rental shortfall. Some £900 million of funding for discretionary housing payments has been provided to local authorities since 2011 to support vulnerable claimants, including victims of domestic abuse.

Ruth George: Is the Minister aware that many local authorities put a limit on the amount of time for which discretionary housing payments can be made? Sometimes it is 18 weeks, and sometimes it is as low as 12 weeks, depending on the authority’s budget. Discretionary housing payments would therefore not help families in this situation.

Heather Wheeler: Indeed. Funding for the years 2018 to 2021 was set out in the summer Budget 2015. Next year, 2018-19, there will be £153 million in the discretionary fund for England and Wales, albeit this is an England- only Bill.
The removal of the spare room subsidy was introduced to ensure that tenants in the social and private-rented sectors are treated on the same basis, to encourage mobility, to strengthen work incentives and to make better use of available social housing. The Government’s policy is not to deal with personal circumstances unrelated to the size of a property by the inclusion of general exemptions to the rules, but rather to take account of a person’s individual circumstances separately, through the process of the discretionary housing payment.
In 2016, the Supreme Court upheld this policy and dismissed a challenge to the removal of the spare room subsidy brought by a victim of domestic abuse on the grounds that it amounted to unlawful sex discrimination. That case involved a victim who was being provided with protection under a sanctuary scheme. The rules on the removal of the spare room subsidy already include an exception for victims of domestic abuse in refuges. We are not minded to provide for any further exceptions.
When local authorities grant tenancies to victims of domestic abuse, they have a choice: they can either ensure that they offer a property that meets the tenant’s needs or they can consider providing a discretionary housing payment. For the reasons I have given, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and therefore ask that it is not pressed to a vote.

Jim Shannon: Can the Minister confirm that in areas where rental accommodation is extremely expensive, there is help for those who need discretionary payments in order to make the weekly rental payments? Is this something she is able to do?

Heather Wheeler: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is specifically referring to Northern Ireland or anywhere else—

Jim Shannon: In Northern Ireland, we have a discretionary payment that sometimes enables provision to be made where rents are higher. Is the system similar on the UK mainland?

Heather Wheeler: Again, I stress that this Bill is England-only, but there are such opportunities. There is a local housing rate and then there are discretionary housing payments that can be made above that.
I come to amendment 3, our final amendment. I fully understand the motivation behind this amendment, which would extend the Bill to housing association landlords—this was the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), I believe. However, as I said in Committee, we have some fundamental concerns about this amendment. First and foremost, local authorities and housing associations are very different entities. Housing associations are private, not-for-profit organisations which make a significant contribution to affordable housing supply. I am sure Members will agree that we all want to see more affordable homes built. It is therefore vital that housing associations remain in the private sector, so that they can borrow funding free of public sector spending guidelines, to build the affordable housing we so greatly need. For that reason, we must avoid imposing any unnecessary control that might risk reversing—

Toby Perkins: I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying. It very much stands at odds with the Conservative party policy announced in the run-up to the general election, when it was going to impose right to buy on housing associations. How is it that the Conservative party is so happy to remove thousands of houses from the social rental sector when it comes to right to buy, but when it comes to legislation to protect domestic violence victims, suddenly the Conservatives feel that the private sector should not be touched?

Heather Wheeler: Clearly, what the hon. Gentleman is discussing is outside the scope of this Bill, but we are talking about a voluntary pilot that is starting in the west midlands and we will see where that takes us.

Bim Afolami: On election manifestos, does the Minister not agree that this Bill is fulfilling a Conservative manifesto promise and that that should be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House?

Heather Wheeler: I thank my hon. Friend for that very helpful intervention, with which I can only agree.
As I was saying, for this reason we must avoid imposing any unnecessary control that might risk reversing the Office for National Statistics classification of housing associations as private sector organisations. Housing associations grant assured tenancies under the  Housing Act 1988, including assured lifetime tenancies, and will continue to have the flexibility to grant lifetime tenancies as they see fit.
This amendment would bring housing associations back into the public sector regime, which they have not properly been part of since 1989, by requiring housing associations to grant secure tenancies under the Housing Act 1985. That goes beyond the very limited circumstances in which they are still obliged to give a secure tenancy—this is limited to those tenants who already have one predating 1989 and want to move, so this is known and in the books of the commercial housing association. Assured and secure tenancies have different rights. For example, secure tenants have a statutory right to improve their property, and be compensated for those improvements, in certain circumstances. To require housing associations to grant secure tenancies for this group of tenants would mean housing association landlords having to operate two different systems, which would be an unnecessary burden over and above the very limited circumstances in which they still manage pre-1989 tenancies, and would introduce unnecessary additional costs and liabilities. As I have already said, that could risk the re-classification of housing associations.
The amendment is also completely unnecessary: housing associations will continue to have the freedom, which they have now, to offer lifetime tenancies wherever they consider it appropriate. When schedule 7 to the Housing and Planning Act 2016 comes into force, local authorities will generally be required to offer fixed-term tenancies, and will be able to grant lifetime tenancies only in the limited circumstances specified in legislation or regulations. That is why the Bill is so important. The purpose of housing associations is to provide and manage homes for people in housing need. The vast majority are charities, and their charitable objectives require them to put tenants at the heart of everything they do. We expect housing associations to take very seriously their responsibilities for people fleeing domestic violence and abuse.
In previous debates on the Bill, I have mentioned the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance, which was set up by two leading housing associations, Peabody and Gentoo, along with Standing Together Against Domestic Violence, a UK charity that brings communities together to end domestic abuse. The alliance’s stated mission is to improve the housing sector’s response to domestic abuse through the introduction and adoption of an established set of standards and an accreditation process.
I understand that the National Housing Federation, the body that represents housing associations, is actively taking forward work with its membership to tackle domestic abuse, and has recently set up a national domestic abuse group for its membership. The group was set up specifically to raise awareness among housing associations of the steps that they can take to minimise the impact of domestic abuse, as well as of how to spot the signs early and how best to support victims. My officials have been in touch with the NHF, and I am really pleased to say that it has expressed an interest in considering the tenancy issue as part of that work. That is a really positive development, and it adds to the information that I was able to give in Committee. With that in mind, and for the reasons that I have given, I invite Members to withdraw the new clause and amendments. I look forward to more debate.

Jess Phillips: First, I welcome the Minister’s comments and the Bill itself. It is a good and necessary Bill, and some of the questions that we asked in Committee have been answered, for the most part.
Now, I want to let me shed a bit of light on the reality of what actually happens to a domestic violence victim when they walk into a housing office, and on the very idea that we could not be doing as much as we possibly could with every single fibre of our beings to try to better serve victims of domestic abuse. Mostly, a woman will get up and walk into her local neighbourhood office. I say “walk”, but where I live she has to get four buses because her local neighbourhood office is now shut, so she has gone into the centre of town, in the second-biggest city in the country. Even just five years ago, she would have found something different. In all the local neighbourhood centres in Birmingham—there used to be eight, then there were four in the Quadrants—there would have been a Women’s Aid worker. This was a specialist adviser in a private room where that woman could have gone to speak about her issues and would have been found the most appropriate housing. That scheme won national awards and reduced homelessness in Birmingham by 50%. The biggest reason for homelessness in most cities will be domestic abuse. That scheme massively reduced it, but it is gone now. There is no local authority funding for the Women’s Aid workers in those centres, and there is only one centre where a women can go.
The woman will walk into a busy centre where there will be absolutely loads going on. There will be people with their children and people who are homeless— 86 people are declared homeless every single day in the city where I live—and she will wait. She will then go to a small cubicle, with sides at shoulder height. The people next to her will be able to hear every single word that she says.
When I was a Birmingham City councillor, I requested that every single person who came through had to be asked whether they had ever been a victim of domestic abuse or sexual violence. I regretted it instantly. I went to a housing office—when they still existed—with one of my constituents. Next to me, in a tiny unsealed-off cubicle, a woman was sitting at her computer. “Have you got any arrears, love?” she asked. “No.” “Have you ever been a victim of sexual violence?” “Yes, I was raped.” “Have you ever been a victim of domestic violence?” “Yes, my husband has assaulted me a number of times. He has been to prison.” “Okay.” Move on.
Nothing changed the way that that woman was approached in the future—nothing at all. I made the person tick a box that they did not want to tick. Now, we can add in another idea. If a woman has come from Walsall, or Dudley or Sandwell or Solihull, or any area that surrounds Birmingham that has nowhere near the level of local housing that Birmingham has—many women fleeing domestic abuse come to our area because the lines on a map mean absolutely nothing to them—we expect those same housing officers, that is, the ones who asked, “Have you ever been a victim of domestic violence, love?”, to now say, “Hang on a minute, actually, you have every right to be in this situation.”
There is a desperate need for training and belief. Part of the problem with this Bill is the same as that with legal aid, which is that the burden is on the victim to  prove it. If a woman turns up and says that she is a victim of domestic abuse, that should be enough. It was enough when Women’s Aid was based in our local housing associations and in our local housing offices. That is why we desperately, desperately need a firm hand in this and why we must say that local authorities must do this. I love my local authority. I know that Margaret Thatcher’s favourite council was Wandsworth—I personally think that it is weird that someone has a favourite local authority, but I have not tried them all. However, I have tried lots of them, and I have found them completely wanting when it comes to victims of domestic violence needing housing.
Let us add into the mix people who have no indefinite leave to remain. If they go to their local housing office, they will probably be told—even if they are a victim of domestic abuse—that they will not be housed and that their children will be removed from them, because the local authority does not have to house women who have a poor migration status.
There has been a hideous case in Birmingham recently where the children were threatened with removal until people like me got involved. There is a plethora of problems out there, and, with the greatest respect, the £17 million, which seems like a lot of money, will not put back what has been lost for victims of domestic abuse even in Birmingham alone. That is why we would like to see a bit of mettle in the training of housing officers. Some housing officers are brilliant—there is no two ways about it—but they are up against it. Someone could wait nine hours to see one in Birmingham. We need to ensure that there is a good system that treats these people appropriately. Unfortunately, when an authority has limited resources, its target is not rehouse someone immediately, so there is a definite need for training.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) covered the cross-border issue well. Unfortunately, I can see that the Minister does not think it is necessary to include it in the Bill, but I have handled hundreds of cases of women sent across the border. In fact, a woman who lived in the refuge where I used to work took the Government to court on the issue of cross-border living between Sandwell Council and Birmingham Council. The fact that a person no longer has to live in an area for whatever period it was—Birmingham said it was five years—is not thanks to anyone in this Chamber; it is thanks to charities and activists outside who bothered to take us—the decision makers—to court.
On the bedroom tax, it may well seem like a small number of women who will end up in a property that is too big for them. But I have seen many cases—I am handling one now—where women are rehoused and their children are removed from them. In cases of domestic abuse, it is utterly common that children are removed, for whatever period of time. These women then have to pay the bedroom tax, lose their property and end up in a one-bedroom flat. The judge in the family court then says, “You don’t have a house big enough to have your children back. You’re not good enough. We can’t give your children back to you.” That happens a lot. It is not a small number of women who have their children removed in domestic violence cases. The vast majority of cases going through the family courts include domestic violence, and many women end up with their children removed for periods of time that  would definitely result in them being affected by this bedroom tax loophole. We should definitely consider what we can do to amend that problem today.

Melanie Onn: The minimisation of the issue around the bedroom tax seems to be due to the fact that the Bill is predicated on an example of someone with a stable and consistent life. But at the point that these people present at a housing office, their life will not be consistent or stable at all, which is why we need to amend the Bill.

Jess Phillips: I absolutely agree. If we could get our housing and welfare systems, which have become fragmented—and were never perfect, don’t get me wrong —to work better together, at least people would have a fighting chance of understanding what the hell they were meant to be doing, because it is a bit confusing at the moment. My hon. Friend is completely right that we are talking about people in chaos.
A tiny fraction of victims of domestic violence present as homeless. The vast majority either stay or end up in refuge, and they will likely have help in those circumstances to get them through the process. But we have to do better for those who turn up the housing office. We have to ensure that local authority staff have a much clearer understanding of this cross-border issue, because the triumph of hope over experience has left many people unhoused.

Maria Miller: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), my fellow member of the Women and Equalities Committee. Of course she speaks with great power on these issues, given her experience. We also heard a great deal from the Minister to give us reassurance about how much work the Government have done to ensure that this Bill is the best that it can be and that it further supports victims of domestic violence—something that this Government have made a huge priority. I congratulate the Minister on all that she is doing to ensure that the situation improves ever further.
I will make some short comments about the amendments, because I think that the Bill generally has cross-party support. A lot of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley said was, frankly, about training among local authority employees, and whether we should be drafting legislation because of the imperfections in local authorities. It is always a balancing act, but we need to ensure that the legislation is as strong as it can be.
I am concerned that new clause 1 could have a clear unintended consequence of undermining the existing devolved powers by taking new powers in the way set out in the new clause. Parliament is clear, as was the Minister in the other place, that there was not and is not a need for primary legislation in this area regarding cross-border movements. In fact, we could unintentionally erode devolution by acting on new clause 1 in the way in which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) has outlined. Ministers clarified that individuals will have the support that they need and that we do not need to legislate in this way. It is good to hear that these devolved matters are being discussed across the nations, and that there is nothing that concerns the devolved nations in this respect.
I turn to amendment 1. The Minister set out that there is already protection in the Bill for all lifetime tenants, including those who have fled their homes and  lost security of tenure. The Bill is specifically drafted to protect individuals facing that situation. In my experience as a Minister, I remember feeling on a number of occasions, “Perhaps we need a belt-and-braces approach here. We really need to spell it out in the Bill.” And what always came through to me in those circumstance was the fact that, in trying to do the very best we can to be as clear as possible, we can actually create confusion by not following the usual protocols. I urge the hon. Member for Great Grimsby to consider that for a moment. As the Minister said, local authorities should have no problem understanding their duties. Indeed, adding to the Bill in the way that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby is suggesting could, because of the redundancy of her new clause, create the opposite of the clarity that she wants.
I have a brief point on amendment 2. As the Minister said, allocating a house that is too big would not be in the best interests of the victim, but specific circumstances might require flexibility. I remember looking particularly at the role of discretionary housing payments when I was a Minister. Such cases fall squarely into the list of examples of why we have these payments. One of the reasons for having such an immense amount of money in this fund—£150 million or so a year—is to be able to give local authorities the flexibility that they need to be able to deal with local circumstances as they see fit. I think that it is better to trust local authorities to get that right than to create specific exceptions that might run the risk of not being used in the way in which the primary legislation requires.
I understand the reason behind this set of amendments. I particularly understand why the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley has spoken with a great deal of passion. One question that I would really like the Minister to answer is: how do we work even harder to ensure that local authorities provide the same support for victims of domestic violence, whether they are in Basingstoke, Birmingham, Yardley or anywhere else?

Heather Wheeler: I hope that my right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that this summer, for the first time ever, the Government are undertaking an audit of all domestic abuse support services right the way across England. We have done a deep dive in Essex, just as a trial. In the county of Essex alone there are over 1,000 different ways of finding help for domestic violence. That is incredible. We need to find out where the domestic violence support services are across the whole country. This is the first time that the Government have ever done this.

Maria Miller: I thank the Minister for those comments. These interventions are driven by that inconsistency in provision of services and by Members of Parliament wanting to get the best for the people they represent. The Minister is entirely right. By knowing how we can better provide a more equal service across the country, I hope that we will provide reassurance to those who support these amendments.

John Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) have made powerful points about family break-up and the role that  the legislation could play in all that? Is not this a case where discretionary payments are very important because if the family can be kept together or brought together again, that would surely be where we would want discretion exercised?

Maria Miller: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That discretion at local level is so important. I have had one or two cases where the local authorities have not necessarily been on the front foot in the use of local discretionary housing payments. Perhaps the Minister could urge local authorities to understand their duties, particularly to families that have broken up and that are at risk of domestic violence, and to really understand the importance of delivering services using these payments.

Heather Wheeler: I thank my right hon. Friend for mentioning that, because it gives me the opportunity to say that there is no limit to the length of time over which discretionary housing payment can be made; it could be one-off time-limited or it could be indefinite.

Maria Miller: Again in her inimitable style, the Minister has answered another of the points that was raised earlier. I recognise that there are potentially time limits attached, and she is right to put on the record that that is entirely outwith any rules or regulations coming from this place.
This Bill helps to improve the lives of victims of domestic violence. That is a priority for this Government and a priority for this Prime Minister. I really applaud the Government’s work in trying to make the lives of victims of domestic abuse better. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley is absolutely right that we should use every sinew in our body to make their lives better, and the Minister is doing a good job in that respect.

Toby Perkins: I would like to start where the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) finished. I agree entirely about the importance of this Bill, which the Minister herself described as being so important. It behoves all of us to consider why somebody who has been through the appalling domestic violence that many of our constituents have experienced would then be willing potentially to stay in that relationship if their security of housing tenure was in danger of being lost. What does it say to all other housing tenants that something so crucial should be glibly given away by Government in their case? The fact that this Bill is so important makes a really vital point about the need for secure tenancy much more broadly.
The hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) said that this was a Tory party manifesto commitment. I did not realise there were any Tory party manifesto commitments still standing, so if it was indeed that, I welcome it. I do not remember the part of the general election campaign where the Tories told us that they were going to take away secure tenancies for all other council housing tenants, so I do not entirely understand how they committed to ensure for domestic violence victims something that they had not told everyone else they were going to take away from them.
I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn). On amendment 1, recognising local connections within the Bill is incredibly important. There is real inconsistency  not just in the way that different local authorities view their responsibilities towards domestic violence victims but in the provision of refuges. I was shocked to hear from Women’s Aid that Devon County Council not only has no provision for refuges but gives no money towards refuges that Women’s Aid provides. In Chesterfield, we are so well served by the refuges provided by the Elm Foundation that we often provide for domestic violence victims who are coming from other areas. Many of the people who are going to use these services will not be local people. It therefore behoves all local authorities everywhere to make provision on behalf of domestic violence victims.
Where there is that inconsistency of provision, the areas with the greatest provision of refuges end up taking more people on to their council house waiting list and then providing that housing, and so those who are best at providing refuges also see the greatest pressure on their housing services. That is a real disincentive to local authorities in making this provision.

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point, but he will have heard the Minister say that she will be undertaking the first ever audit of local authority provision. Does he not wonder, as I do, why that has not happened before?

Toby Perkins: I welcome the audit, but the question is what happens afterwards. I would like this to be a statutory service with a responsibility on local authorities to provide it. Will there be any move by the Government towards that? Having the information is one thing, but the next thing is what the Government do with it.
On amendment 2, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) made an incredibly powerful point about the bedroom tax, describing the circumstances where domestic violence victims might lose their children and then find that they are moving into a small flat and are told by the family courts that they do not have appropriate accommodation to get their children back. I was not at all convinced by what the Minister said about why the amendment was not relevant. I urge my hon. Friend to press it to a vote, because we cannot talk about straining every sinew and still have a barrier of that kind in the way of domestic violence victims.
There is a broader need for us to recognise the threat to refuges that exists not only because of local authority funding cuts but because of proposed changes to housing benefit. We must look at the impact that that could have on refuge provision. I urge the Government, if they are serious about supporting domestic violence victims, to make every possible representation to the Department for Work and Pensions with regard to implementing those housing benefit changes. I support the Government on this important Bill. However, I urge Members to support all the amendments, particularly amendment 2, because they will add further powers to the Bill.

Robert Syms: This is an important Bill. I think that we all heard the passion with which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) spoke about this subject, which really underlined how important it is.
I have sat in this Parliament for a long time, and it has always struck me that short Bills, specifically to the point, are far more powerful in supporting people’s rights than  the Bills that we sometimes see, with clause after clause. We know how complex housing issues are, and that is why guidance is the key. We put the right into primary legislation, and then we have the guidance to deal with the problems. Victims of domestic violence are often in a chaotic situation because of the nature of what is happening in the home. The best way of dealing with that is through guidance.
The Department consults very widely on guidance. A vast raft of housing charities and women’s rights charities can give their views, and then we have a Committee upstairs. I must admit that having Committees upstairs that simply note what has been discussed always seems slightly odd, but the consultation gives Members an opportunity to raise a lot of points. Indeed, if the Opposition want to pray against something, it sometimes comes to the Floor of the House for a vote. There are mechanisms for ensuring that the guidance is comprehensive and right and it was probably written by the same experts in the Department who were trying to deal with this difficult and complex problem under the Labour Government.
I have seen the passion that many Members have expressed on this subject, and I understand that because this is about people’s lives, but I also listened very carefully to the Minister. She talked about training; that is good. She talked about audit; that is good. She talked about various money pots; that is good. She talked about pilots, which means that the Department is open-minded about how we should go about solving some of these very important problems. Providing that the pilots and the audit are done properly, we can get a better service to those who face the real and great tragedy of domestic violence and the consequences that has for them, their children and the family.
I think that the Government are on the right track. I understand the passion that people feel about this. However, it is not about what is in the Bill; it is about what is in the guidance. There is a big debate to be had on that, but today we need to get on with supporting the Bill and getting it on to the statute book. I therefore support the Minister in resisting the amendments. Let us consult on the guidance, listen to what the experts want us to do, and have a listening Government who will try to ensure that we have a fit-for-purpose policy that will deal with people who are facing great misery at home because of this problem.

Alex Norris: Before coming to this place, I served on my city council, where for a number of years I had responsibility for Nottingham’s efforts to tackle domestic abuse and to support survivors. I learned many things during that period, but one thing has particularly stuck with me ever since: when a survivor—usually a woman—makes the decision to leave their abuser, the state must be there to wrap around that person. There can be no grey areas and no “I’ll call you back on Monday”. It must be immediate and comprehensive. Whether it is housing, support for children or fostering for pets, it has to be there. It is with that in mind that I rise to speak.
The Bill enjoys support on both sides of the House, as we have heard, and from the charities that work tirelessly to protect women and children fleeing abuse. The intentions behind the Bill are decent, and while we in this place may not directly see the impact of the decisions we take today, those decisions will change the  lives of very vulnerable people and allow them to escape their abusers and start to live their life free from fear. Nevertheless, there are some grey areas of outstanding concern that I want to focus on briefly.
The first is reciprocal arrangements, which are covered in new clause 1. The nature of the abuse that a survivor is fleeing means that they might need to leave Nottingham and go to Birmingham or even Cardiff or Glasgow, and it is vital that they are not disadvantaged. I am grateful for the assurance we were offered—not this morning, as the Minister said, but this afternoon, in letter form—that the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Administrations are relaxed about their abilities to ensure such arrangements. Nevertheless, people change and circumstances change, and that letter will not be of much significance if co-operation is not properly monitored. That is all the new clause asks for, and whether it is accepted or not, I hope that the Government will continue to commit to that.
The Government have stated that the legislation will protect victims who need to move their secure tenancy across local authority boundaries and that amendment 1 is unnecessary because the courts and Government guidance state that the local connection test does not apply in domestic abuse cases. However, those who work on the ground know that that is not quite how it works. The organisations that work most closely with those fleeing abuse have made it clear that, as is so often the case, there is a difference between the best-intentioned Government guidance and the reality of the situation on the ground.
Women often have to flee across local authority boundaries to find safety, and we know that local authorities are at best inconsistent. In 2016-17, local housing teams prevented nearly a fifth of the women supported by Women’s Aid’s “No Woman Turned Away” project from making a valid homelessness application on the grounds of domestic abuse, for reasons including that they had no local connection. It is said in this place that the local connection test does not apply in domestic abuse cases, but it is not always filtering down. That is a good argument for putting that explicitly in the Bill, so that there is no doubt and no grey areas, and on the night or day when an individual leaves, whether they have a local connection or not, the expectation on the local authority is entirely clear.
Finally, on amendment 2 and the bedroom tax, I was really interested to hear from the Minister. She made it clear that this would happen in a very small number of cases, but I would be interested to hear what the evidence base was for that and what those numbers were. I am certain that none of us in this place would want finances to come into play when an individual is making the very difficult decision to leave their abuser. None of us would want that individual to be punished because the house they were moving into was deemed to have a spare room, because they were waiting to be reunited with their children or because of the way the housing stock we are talking about was structured. In Nottingham, there is not a suite of choices waiting for an individual, with the option of saying, “You’d be suitable for a one-bedroom place,” or, “You might be suitable for a three-bedroom place.” The fact of the matter is that we will be putting them wherever we can. I know that none of us would want them to be financially punished  for that, which is an excellent reason for accepting amendment 2, so that we are very clear, because it is in the grey areas that we will struggle.
I am conscious that other Members are waiting to speak, so I will leave it there. I believe that the new clause and the amendments would strengthen the Bill. I do not think that much of their substance has been disagreed with; it is just about whether or not to write them down. I will make this clear argument: let us not leave it to guidance. Let us be explicitly, painfully, to-the-letter clear about the system that we are designing today. The consequences of it are life and death, so it is well worth our putting those words on the face of the Bill.

Lucy Allan: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who made insightful remarks. Today’s debate has been incredibly valuable and informative. I am so grateful to all Members who have come here to share their experience, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). Often we talk about her passion, for which she is renowned, but she brings to this place the very lucid voice of the women she has worked with and the chaos she has seen, and so often the work we do misses that voice. It is not just her passion for which we should be grateful, but her great experience and her capacity to bring it to us in this place in a way that we can all understand.
I would also like to comment on the hon. Lady’s remarks about children being taken into care as a result of domestic violence. She is absolutely right; the failure to protect so often causes women to lose their children to the care system, and anything we can do in this place to reduce that eventuality has to lessen some of the agony and pain that families go through in these circumstances.
I am really pleased that we are here discussing the Bill. It is testament to the work of many Members that this issue has become centre-stage. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving her absolute commitment to tackling the issues of domestic violence and for keeping this manifesto commitment. We are all talking about it today, and that is what we need to do more of.
The Minister has given us a lot of reassurance today. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley will be pleased to know that I previously worked at a Women’s Aid refuge in Wandsworth Council’s area, and I can confirm that the women coming to that refuge were always coming out of borough for the sake of their own safety. I listened to what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) said about amendment 1, and she was persuading me that I should support it, because I have seen that at first hand and know exactly what she is alluding to. However, we have received some clear and categorical assurances from the Minister, for which I am grateful. I have taken those on board and am very pleased indeed.
I welcome the other important measures that the Government are seeking to introduce, including the £17 million violence against women and girls service transformation fund. I am grateful that the issue has become central to our agenda in this Parliament, not least because in the past 18 months, three women in the  Telford area have been killed by partners or ex-partners in their own home or a home they shared with the perpetrator. Sometimes these horrific events can become normalised. We read about it in the Shropshire Star, but nobody even alludes to the fact that it was an ex-partner or that it was domestic violence. We need to talk about it, which is why it is so important that we are all here today.
I do not want to add any further comments to what has been said, other than on training. In my experience, women approaching housing authorities do not always come up against the type of treatment and response that we would like them to receive. I feel that demanding that all councils provide training is not the way forward. Councils have to take this on board and understand that it is their duty to provide a better level of response, and by having this debate, we are making them aware that women who go to housing authorities in these circumstances are not receiving the sort of response that they should expect and that we all want them to receive.
I am very grateful to the Minister for her comments and to colleagues on both sides of the House for the contributions they have made. This is a very important Bill. It is a short Bill, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said at the outset, but it is a hugely significant one, and that is why I wanted to share these comments.

Bim Afolami: I am aware that many others wish to speak, so I will be brief. Those who are still left in the Public Gallery have seen today the best of Parliament. This is the complete opposite of yah-boo politics. There has been cross-party discussion about a Bill that generally appears to have cross-party support. We should welcome that and welcome the exchange of ideas and views. That does not always happen in this Chamber, but it has happened today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) said, this is a short Bill. It is clear and to the point, and it deals with a specific problem. When the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) reads Hansard tomorrow morning, she will see many references to her speech, but let me add one more. The disagreement from Conservative Members with certain points she made was not on the substance of the issue, but on the appropriateness of those points in relation to the Bill. However, I am sure that she, the Minister and others will continue to work on this issue, and I think that Members across all parties appreciate her expertise in this area.
One point in particular is worth making. Labour Members have spoken about the spare room subsidy, which is not really the subject of the Bill, but I want to make the point that it is critical to get more social housing built. For the Bill to be effective, we really need as much social housing as possible to be built. If they take a look at the record, as I have, they will see that roughly 2,900 local authority homes a year were built from 1997 to 2010, while under this Government—about half of that time—over 10,000 local authority homes a year were built from 2010 to 2017. Labour Members must look at their own record on social housing, and realise that a lot of the problems we now face are partly down to the fact that they did not build enough homes when they were in office. I know that the Minister and the Government are working on that.
I finish by agreeing with the Minister and other Conservative Members that I do not believe the new clause and amendments are appropriate in this context, and I shall vote against them for that reason.

Luke Graham: I rise to speak to new clause 1, which would have a specific impact on local authorities in Scotland, including in my constituency. I would say at the outset, in relation to the thrust of what was said by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), that I agree about the need for more co-operation across the United Kingdom, and I will come on to that shortly. The difficulty, as shown by the fact that I am the only Scottish MP in the Chamber, is that the Bill is not necessarily the right vehicle to do so, because it cuts across some devolved areas, and I want to go into that in a little more detail.
The Government have a strong record on domestic abuse, and the Bill is a further example of that. We have criminalised coercive and bullying behaviour, and we have made sure that we have domestic violence orders. We currently have an open consultation, which provides the potential for more powers and a greater understanding of other types of crimes, such as economic abuse, that are often unseen. That is certainly the experience of many of my constituents, as many people in public authority have seen.
My knowledge of this matter has largely come from my constituents, as well as from some of my own family experience. Many of my constituents have relationships that span the United Kingdom. Men and women who have had such relationships may have some children in England and some in Scotland, so there is a real need for co-ordination and for a UK minimum standard. I have seen at first hand, in refuges and in my constituency office, the bravery of these women as well as the hardship that they have endured. I know how much of an impact there can be on individual lives, and how much need there is for them to move from one local authority to another, which may not be an adjacent one but a local authority far up the country in Scotland or somewhere in England.
Members have talked a lot about the terrible abuse that women have endured, and we know that domestic abuse has a disproportionate impact on women. It is also important to say, however, that 700,000 men were victims of domestic abuse in 2015-16, and that young people are also victims. When we talk about giving people opportunities in secure tenancies in other local authorities around the country, we need to ensure that we capture everyone, because domestic abuse affects many different types of individual at many different ages.
As I have said, and I will keep my remarks brief, a national minimum is desirable. I very much feel that there are times when we are four nations and many regions, but there are also times when we are one country. On this issue, I believe that having a national minimum would be incredibly desirable. I am very keen to work with Opposition Members, certainly as we examine other pieces of legislation in this place, on having UK-wide frameworks, especially in new policy areas, to make sure that there are UK-wide minimums, even if the services are delivered through devolved Administrations, local authorities or other devolved agencies. I am very willing to help in such a way. Unfortunately, however, as the Bill is targeted at England,  making an amendment to loop in what is a devolved area in Scotland—it would have an impact in my local authority and others—this is not the best place to do so. I hope to work with Opposition Members in future to try to develop policies on such minimums.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will continue in the spirit of consultation that she always shows in relation to the devolved Administrations, and perhaps she will consider extending her audit of services elsewhere in the United Kingdom—beyond England to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Melanie Onn: I want to assure the Minister that at every stage of the Bill, since I have been involved, I have sought to be constructive in my approach. Having heard the arguments and the Minister’s response, let me say that I do not intend to push new clause 1 or amendments 1 and 3 to a vote. We have made our points as fully as we can—sadly, to no avail—but I do not want to cause any unnecessary delay to the Bill.
On the bedroom tax, however, the Minister’s response was not wholly sufficient to ease the Opportunity’s concern about the potential for a damaging loophole to be created, which would be to the detriment of domestic abuse victims. As the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) said, we want a fit-for-purpose policy, and that is what we are all aiming for. I therefore request that the House be permitted to divide on amendment 2, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 1.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1

Duty to grant old-style secure tenancies: victims of domestic abuse

Amendment proposed: 2,page1,line25, at end insert—
“(2BA) A local housing authority which grants an old-style secure tenancy under subsection (2A) or (2B) has discretion to decide whether or not the maximum rent for the old-style secure tenancy should be determined according to regulation B13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/213) as amended by the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/ 3040).”—(Melanie Onn.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 246, Noes 302.

Question accordingly negatived.

Rosie Winterton: I remind the House that before Second Reading, as required by the Standing Order, the Speaker certified the entire Bill as relating exclusively to England and within legislative competence. The Bill has not been amended since then. Copies of the certificate are available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website.
Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is required for the Bill to proceed. Copies of the motion are now available. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motion?

Penny Mordaunt: indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M).
[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]

Rosie Winterton: I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England may vote.
I call the Minister to move the consent motion.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Programme Order, 19 March, and Standing Order No. 83M(5)),
That the Committee consents to the Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [Lords].—(Mrs Wheeler.)
Question agreed to.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.
Third Reading

Heather Wheeler: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I will be very brief, because I believe the Bill has cross-party support. This short and targeted Bill is an important part of the Government’s wider aims of supporting victims of domestic abuse to leave their abusive situation, and ensuring that they and their families are provided with the stability and security they need and deserve. I am sure all Members agree that domestic abuse is a particularly horrible crime. Its effects are insidious and its impacts are wide-reaching. It has serious and lasting impacts on victims, their families and society as a whole.
The Bill will protect lifetime tenants who have to flee their home, whether they apply for rehousing by their own local authority or to any other local authority in England. It will also protect those who have lost their lifetime tenancy if they have fled their home, and it will protect those who want to return to their home after the perpetrator has left or been removed. It will ensure that in every case, where they are granted a new tenancy by the local authority, they will know that they are able to retain their lifetime tenancy in their new social home.
Lord Bourne was personally very committed to taking the Bill through the other place and I am proud to have been able to do so in this place. He was very grateful for the cross-party support he received from his noble colleagues and I would like to echo my thanks to hon. Members for their support. I know that we have had our differences regarding the detail, but I am sure we are all in agreement on the main aims of the Bill. We can all take credit for ensuring that this small but vital piece of proposed legislation is put on the statute book, but I would like, if I may, to pay particular tribute to Baroness Lister of Burtersett. She has been the mainspring behind the Bill and it is through her persistence during its passage in the other place that it is in such good shape.
I am heartened to know that the Bill has been widely welcomed by the organisations that support victims of domestic abuse, in particular Women’s Aid. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who work so hard to support victims of domestic abuse everywhere, not just Women’s Aid but Refuge, IMKAAN and many more.
Before I finish I would also like to thank the members of the Bill team for their hard work and support in taking the Bill through: Frances Walker, Jane Worthington, Jane Everton, Lizzie Clifford, the parliamentary draftsman Anthony Brown, and finally, from my own team, Emma Andrews.

Melanie Onn: I would like to start by thanking my colleagues in this House, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), and, for her contributions this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George). I also thank Members in the other place for scrutinising this proposed legislation and ensuring that it leaves in a marginally better state than when it arrived. I would particularly like to pay tribute to my colleague Baroness Lister, as her amendment to the original Housing and Planning Act 2016 is the reason the Bill is before us today.
I am disappointed that the Minister has been so reluctant to support any of our amendments, as they would have strengthened the Bill by helping to equalise the quality of care across the country and guaranteeing that domestic abuse victims who move authorities still have a secure tenancy in their new authority. I had hoped that, given that mistakes had been made in this area in the past and such provision had not been included in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, the Government might have listened to some of the concerns from the sector about the ambiguity of the Bill. However, given that we have just divided on the matter, we will support the Bill as drafted.
Despite that, the Bill leaves the House today and it will do a large amount of good for many domestic abuse victims across the country. By guaranteeing a secure tenancy to victims of domestic abuse moving from a secure tenancy, the Bill will remove a key barrier that prevents domestic abuse victims from leaving their perpetrator. There is a clear need for a new radical and credible approach to housing and refuges, but the Bill will provide more security to many domestic abuse victims who are in secure tenancies. We therefore support the Bill.

Ruth George: I welcome the Bill before us today. I also welcome the Minister stating the Government’s wider aim of enabling victims of domestic violence to be able to leave the perpetrator so that abuse can end.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), I was very disappointed that the Government were not prepared to listen, in particular to amendment 2. I urge the Minister to go back to housing benefit and discretionary housing payment practice in local authorities, because even the national housing executive guidance on the gov.uk website states that a discretionary payment will last for a set period of time. That is what happens in practice.
In the last period for which we have information on discretionary housing payment, 121 councils ran out of discretionary housing payment budget. That means time-limited grants that people are able to reapply for, but, in a domestic violence situation, that is another burden  and payment cannot be guaranteed. That leads to further insecurity for victims and for their children, in particular in the very distressing circumstances, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), where children have been taken away due to failure to protect. We would all wish to see those circumstances come to an end as soon as possible for such families.
I turn to the wider implications of the Government’s policy on domestic violence, particularly around universal credit, which I have been looking at as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee. I very much hope that the Minister will take her experience of issues relating to domestic violence and to women who seek to flee from their abuser and speak to colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about the single payment system under universal credit. The Financial Times highlights this issue today, saying that women will not even be able to access the money for a bus, train or taxi fare to leave their abuser. As I mentioned in an intervention, even when victims manage to leave, they need a benefits system that will respond immediately to their needs and guarantee them benefit and support. Some victims are not even able to access a place in a refuge without that support and end up going back to the perpetrator of their abuse. One cannot imagine the additional abuse that they will receive having attempted to leave, and then having to go back again.
Although the Bill is welcome, a lot of social housing providers are very concerned about universal credit in cases when there is a joint tenancy, because when a perpetrator of domestic violence leaves, the payment is split between the perpetrator and the victim of domestic abuse. This means that the victim receives only half the housing element of universal credit and therefore immediately falls into arrears. Evidence that we took on the all-party group on universal credit showed that some victims of domestic violence were already being evicted, because the system meant that their arrears had built up to thousands of pounds.
Although I very much welcome the Bill and the Government’s wider intentions, I hope that the Minister will use the experience that she has gathered on the Bill to talk to other Departments and to look at the overall experience of victims of domestic violence and the support that they get from Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 16 October 2017 (Nuclear Safeguards Bill (Programme)).
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Lords Amendments Nos. 3, 1, 2 and 4 to 7.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Kelly Tolhurst.)
Question agreed to.

NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS BILL

Consideration of Lords amendments.
Queen’s consent signified.
After Clause 1

Agreements required before withdrawal

Richard Harrington: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 3.
Lords amendments 1, 2 and 4 to 7.

Richard Harrington: Before I say a few words about the amendments, I want to reflect on the passage of the Bill. It has passed through this House in an orderly manner, with a great many thoughtful points made by Members on both sides of the House who are here today and by many who are not. I particularly pay tribute to the Opposition Front-Bench team, led by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead)—I will never forget his constituency after this Bill. Although we have had our moments of disagreement, I have been encouraged by the strong consensus and have done my best to listen carefully to his amendments. I hope he would accept that I have given a lot of thought to them and that I have tried to accept those that I can. Lord Henley and I have made considerable efforts to listen to concerns in the other place as well, as has been seen in the amendments we have made to the Bill.
Outside the legislation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State committed to making regular progress updates to Parliament. The first report was published on 27 March and the next will follow next month. We also provided draft regulations to support the House’s deliberations on the Bill, and I confirm today that I am placing in the Library the Department’s analysis on the application of Standing Order No. 83O, in respect of any motion relating to a Lords amendment, for Commons consideration of Lords amendments stage.
The Government opposed amendment 3 on Report in the House of Lords. I have listened carefully to the views of Members, including the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. The amendment would require that in a situation where particular agreements relating to nuclear safeguards are not in place, the Government would have to request that the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom be suspended until they are.

John Howell: The Minister may be aware that in the last few hours, I have had a conversation with the head of Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, who says that the Government are moving in the right direction on this, and have already agreed to pay for an association and are moving in the right direction on that. If the Minister is going to oppose the amendment, he has my full support and that of the head of Culham.

Richard Harrington: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, which I believe reflects the progress that we have made. He works very hard for Culham; it is an extremely impressive place and I am sure that everyone on both sides of the House supports what they do.

Robert Syms: May I be the first to congratulate the Minister on the co-operation agreement that we have signed with the United States of America? This is a very good sign. There was some concern in Committee about the progress that we had made, and I believe that the Minister is doing his utmost to make sure that we have a fit-for-purpose regime in future.

Richard Harrington: I thank my hon. Friend. I would like to say that it was because of the personal influence that I have with President Trump, but no one in this House, and particularly you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would hear that. However, it shows that we have made a lot of progress and things are going according to plan. I am grateful to the United States for that assistance it has given us, as well as that of the other countries we are dealing with and the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose initials some of us repeatedly had difficulty pronouncing—I will come to the IAEA in a moment.
As currently formulated, amendment 3 will not work. Subsection (3)(c) currently contains a broad reference to international agreements made by Euratom to which the UK is a party. First, the UK is not a party to Euratom’s nuclear co-operation agreements; Euratom concludes them on behalf of member states, and Euratom, rather than the member states, is a party to those agreements. Secondly, subsection 3(c) covers a number of international agreements that are not in fact required to ensure the continuity of nuclear trade after withdrawal from Euratom. For these reasons, the other agreements that are covered by Lords amendment 3 should be restricted to the priority nuclear co-operation agreements with Australia, Canada, Japan and the US. Although I cannot agree to Lords amendment 3 in its present form, I am tabling an amendment in lieu, which I believe will address parliamentarians’ concerns. I particularly hope that it will address the issues raised by the shadow Front-Bench team and Members on both sides of the House.

John Woodcock: With respect, the Minister is doing what every single Minister will always do when faced with Opposition amendments—that is, nit-pick over the precise wording. If he is going to table his own amendment, will it clearly state that the UK will not withdraw from Euratom until the required agreements are in place so that we have a similar, commensurate level of security?

Richard Harrington: I have always listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says. He knows a lot about nuclear and deserves attention particularly on this Bill and every other nuclear subject that comes up. He accuses me of nit-picking—politely, as always—and then nit-picks about the language in my amendment, which I do hope he has read and which I will explain more about now. We do nit-pick in Parliament, though, because everyone is trying their best to get it right, and I accept that language can mean everything. I am sure that “nit-picking” is a parliamentary word, Madam Deputy Speaker. If it is not, I still fully accept it from him.
Under the amendment in lieu, if any principal international agreements are not signed, which is everybody’s fear, and no other equivalent arrangements in respect of unsigned agreements have been made, the Secretary of State would have to ask the EU for the corresponding Euratom arrangements to continue to have effect in place of the unsigned agreements. The relevant agreements are: the voluntary offer agreement and additional protocol with the IAEA and the four priority nuclear co-operation agreements—with the USA, Canada, Japan and Australia.
The amendment in lieu provides a sensible compromise that addresses the central concerns of parliamentarians about the possibility of a cliff edge while removing the technical—we could say “nit-picking”, in honour of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock)—issues. It addresses the valid points that he and others have made about a cliff edge. It specifically names only the agreements that the UK needs to avoid disruption to our civil nuclear trade and co-operation, whereas Lords amendment 3 refers to agreements entered into more broadly. We have prioritised putting in place bilateral NCAs with those countries that have a legal or policy requirement for an NCA to be in place for civil nuclear trade to continue. As I have said, those countries are the USA, Canada, Australia, and Japan.
The amendment in lieu creates a two-part test, in respect of international agreements and other arrangements, for existing Euratom arrangements to continue to apply after exit day. Amendment 3 was tabled before the agreement with the EU on the terms of an implementation period, whereas the amendment in lieu is capable of taking account of such a period. That implementation period, by meeting hon. Members’ wish for assurance of continuity in nuclear safeguards arrangements, would satisfy the second part of the test in this amendment in lieu.

Alex Sobel: The Minister has talked about the implementation period and our ongoing relations with Euratom. What discussions has he had with the European Commission to determine whether our membership of Euratom will continue during the transition period?

Richard Harrington: My officials have had a lot of discussions with the EU on Euratom, as the hon. Gentleman might imagine, and I am very satisfied with the stage we have reached. If he will excuse me, I will try to cover that in the rest of my contribution.

Stephen Kerr: During the Select Committee hearings on this matter, David Wagstaff, the head of the Euratom exit negotiations at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, indicated that progress in establishing new nuclear co-operation agreements with the USA, Canada, Japan and Australia was well advanced and that these would be completed in time for our departure. Did he mean next March or the end of the implementation period?

Richard Harrington: I can assure my hon. Friend that he meant March 2019. In answer also to the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), I would like to assure the House that the UK and the EU have  reached agreement on the terms of an implementation period that will run from 30 March 2019 until the end of 2020. The existing Euratom treaty arrangements will continue during this period and businesses will be able to continue to trade on the same terms as now. As part of this, the UK and the EU agreed that for the duration of the implementation period the EU’s international agreements will continue to apply to the UK. This will include Euratom’s existing nuclear co-operation agreements with the USA, Canada, Australia and Japan.

Robert Syms: I presume that the objective is to sign agreements with all the countries mentioned before March 2019, but there is also a process of ratification. Is it the Government’s objective to get those ratified before the leaving date, or will some of them be ratified during the transition period?

Richard Harrington: The best example I can give is the ratification of the agreement with the US—and this will also explain the difference between signing and ratification. Now that it has been signed, it needs to be approved in accordance with the relevant constitutional requirements of the UK and the US, just as will be the case with the other bilateral agreements, but we have built into our timetable sufficient time to allow for the necessary processes in both the UK Parliament—it will come before Parliament this year—and the US Congress, which has a slightly different arrangement involving several days of congressional business. I am very confident, however, that the process will be completed. In both cases, it is unprecedented for this to be anything other than a formality. Both countries will then exchange notes to bring the agreement into force when required, which we fully expect to be at the end of the implementation period, but we have built plenty of time into the process.

John Redwood: This all sounds like very good progress. Is it true that the other four agreements the Minister says are necessary will be similarly available and ready by March 2019?

Richard Harrington: I have every confidence that those agreements will be ready, signed and ratified. I have no reason to believe anything other than that.
If the relevant agreements or arrangements are not in place 28 days before exit day, the amendment in lieu would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to make a request to the European Council to continue to be covered by the corresponding Euratom agreements—the trilateral agreements between the IAEA, Euratom and the UK and the bilateral agreements between the countries I have mentioned. That request would cover only those areas for which the UK had not signed a relevant agreement or made arrangements for the corresponding Euratom agreement to continue to apply to the UK after exit. I think that answers the questions about process.
I have not mentioned the IAEA itself. We have made very good progress in negotiating with the IAEA, having held several productive rounds of discussions, and it has shared with us the draft voluntary offer agreement and additional protocol. Negotiations on these documents have made good progress, and we expect to conclude a  final draft in time for them to be put to the June meeting of the board of governors. The UK has a very strong relationship with the IAEA and continues to support it across a range of nuclear non-proliferation issues—something I was able to reinforce in my meeting last week with the director general, Mr Amano.
Lords amendments 1, 2 and 7 were Government amendments placing the definition of “civil activities” in the Bill. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that a definition of “civil activities” be placed in the Bill, so far as is possible, supplemented by a power to develop, where necessary, its meaning in regulations. The definition we inserted takes into account the continuing work on the draft regulations that will underpin the Bill, on which we are intending to consult in July. Although the Committee accepted that it might still be necessary to supplement this definition with a power to embellish its meaning in regulations, I have not found that to be necessary, so the amendments remove the existing power to specify in regulations activities that are or are not to be treated as “civil activities” and replace it with a definition in the Bill without creating another power. They therefore reduce the number of powers created by the Bill.
The sunset clause discussed by the Opposition Front-Bench team places a time limit—colloquially known as a “sunset”—on the use of the power in clause 2. Hon. Members may recall that clause 2 contains the power to amend three pieces of legislation in consequence of a relevant safeguards agreement—an agreement relating to nuclear safeguards to which the UK and the agency are parties. That legislation makes detailed references to specific provisions of international safeguards agreements. Those references, including references to specific articles, are likely to change as a result of any amendment of, or change in, the agreements. We therefore believe that the power in the Bill is necessary to make the changes in the relevant legislation to update the references when the new agreements are in place. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended preventing the use of the power after a period of two years had expired. The amendment addresses the principle of the Committee’s recommendation, but provides for a “sunset” period of five years to ensure that the provision can function effectively in all scenarios, including that of an implementation period with the EU.
Lords amendments 5 and 6 deal with statutory reporting. As I have said, I took very seriously the cross-party requests from parliamentarians for regular detailed updates about nuclear safeguards arrangements in this country. The amendments, as amended by the Opposition, would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to provide quarterly reports on nuclear safeguards, covering both domestic and international matters, for the first year after the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Jamie Stone: This is a general point, but I should like the Minister to be mindful of it. I do not pretend to understand the morass of amendments and timings, but the nuclear site at Dounreay, in my constituency, is being decommissioned, and, thanks to the involvement of Euratom and other agencies in the past, we have achieved a standard of excellence that is second to none in the world. I am anxious to ensure that the skills that we have there are developed and exported to other  countries, and to ensure that, whatever Her Majesty’s Government puts in place of Euratom—whatever systems are introduced, and whatever clauses are included in the various bits of legislation—the importance of that is remembered and the quality is retained where it should be for the future, because otherwise we will lose an opportunity.

Richard Harrington: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman: Dounreay has one of the finest reputations. I have not yet had the pleasure and honour of visiting it—although if I were able to visit it, I should be pleased to do so—but I have visited Sellafield, and have discussed matters extensively with all the nuclear decommissioning authorities there. Dounreay is thought of very highly, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing will be done to denude it of its reputation or lower the current non-proliferation standard. I was delighted to hear that the skills to which he has referred are being exported all over the world. The last thing that this or, I hope, any Government would want to do is bring about a reduction from the gold standard that is led by his constituency. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I am nit-picking again. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness is very alert to nit-picking, and I shall try not to do so.
I hope Members will agree that the Government have proceeded with the Bill on a consensual basis. As I have said, we have made several important concessions in both Houses. Although we have not been able to agree to Lords amendment 3, I have listened to the arguments advanced today, and I believe that the compromise amendment goes a long way to achieving what the Opposition want. It preserves the key features of their amendment by requiring the Government to write to the EU seeking support if certain agreements or alternative arrangements are not in place. I therefore hope that Members will join me in agreeing to amendments that provide important reassurance for Members of both Houses.

Alan Whitehead: This is, I trust, the last occasion on which we will deal with the Bill in the House of Commons. I thank the Minister for the careful, courteous and inclusive way in which he has handled it, which I have found very helpful. We all want the Bill to be enacted, and I think that our discussions about how it should proceed have benefited from the way in which he has conducted himself and presented his side of the argument.
I support Lords amendment 3, which, as the Minister has said, is the only amendment that the Government oppose. We welcome their acceptance of the sensible additions to the Bill that are contained in the other amendments, some of which, although originally proposed by the Government, make adjustments for which we have pressed throughout its passage. For instance, there are proposals to limit the period during which Henry VIII clauses could be used to amend existing legislation retrospectively, and to give the Minister fewer powers to define civil nuclear activities. Lords amendment 5 would insert a new clause on reporting, for which the Opposition have pressed strongly both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. By introducing a three-monthly reporting regime, it would ensure that issues relating to Euratom’s wider remit, over and above nuclear  safeguarding—such as nuclear research and development and the import and export of qualifying nuclear material—were debated regularly in the House.
Those are all sensible additions to the Bill. They strengthen it, and we are pleased that they will become part of its final architecture. As I have said, we have always agreed about the overall need for it as a contingency measure, to deal with the eventuality that we do indeed leave Euratom at the end of March 2019. We will of course continue to raise the issue of leaving it at all, and the question of the role that it might play during the transition period after the end of March. However, we clearly need the best possible alternative arrangements to fully protect nuclear safeguarding, and to ensure that the regime is as good as that which was deployed under the Euratom arrangements that we will be transferring to the Office for Nuclear Regulation.
In the establishment of that regime, a vital role will be played by the adoption of bilateral treaties with civil nuclear countries—particularly Australia, Canada, Japan and the United States—and, of course, by the voluntary agreement that will supersede the agreement made with the IAEA on behalf of European civil nuclear countries by Euratom. That agreement will be tenable only on the basis that we have in place a mechanism that will satisfy the IAEA that we are in earnest about nuclear safeguarding separately from Euratom. That is one of the central purposes of the Bill.
The adoption of those treaties is an essential element of ensuring that there are no cliff edges as we leave Euratom. In Committee, representatives of the nuclear industry, among others, expressed the fear that leaving Euratom without introducing all the measures necessary to ensure a smooth continuation of function could create a gap in provision that would be devastating for the operation of civil nuclear in the UK.

Stephen Kerr: Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the progress that the Government are evidently making towards the conclusion of these agreements? That is good news, is it not?

Alan Whitehead: I think the hon. Gentleman has slightly anticipated what I was about to say. It is indeed good news that progress is being made in that regard, but there is not much time left between now and March 2019, and there are still a number of treaties to go.
Lords amendment 3 addresses what is perhaps the most central point of the whole exercise. If those treaties are not securely in place before the date of withdrawal, we must have mechanisms for extending the period of coverage of Euratom, as it were—which means not just an extension during the implementation period, but an extension in its own right—until they are in place. We were told earlier in the Bill’s passage that all this was unnecessary, because everything would be put in hand before March 2019, and we have discussed the progress that has been made, but we have heard nothing about a plan B to be deployed in the event of its not being concluded. It may be that all the treaties will be in place, and we heard today that one of the bilaterals had been signed with the United States, but there are three more to be signed with major civil nuclear countries, and there is also the voluntary arrangement to be established with the IAEA. The Lords amendment gives us that fall-back protection, and a clear route towards obtaining it.

Layla Moran: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while some of the safeguards the Minister mentions might well work, it would be easier to stay in Euratom until such time as everything is concluded so that there is absolutely no way we would fall off any cliff edges? Does he agree that “may” is not good enough in this scenario?

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Lady makes the important point that to have the full protection of staying in Euratom would be the best thing to do, not just on nuclear safeguarding but on a range of other civil nuclear activities, until we are absolutely certain that we have ticked every box and ensured that we have alternatives that are as good as what we have under Euratom. That, very largely, is what Lords amendment 3 seeks to do. It seeks to ensure that there is recourse to the full covering arrangements of Euratom if those boxes have not been ticked.
After waiting until the very last moment to tell us that Lords amendment 3 is not needed and will be opposed, the Government have finally come up with an amendment in lieu of their own that suggests that perhaps a fall-back plan is needed after all. Its wording is, in many respects, very similar to Lords amendment 3. It places the signing of these treaties as the essential element in securing the transition to a full nuclear safeguarding role without Euratom, and specifies, as amendment 3 does, what they are. That in itself is a considerable victory for those who counselled for this over a period of time, and is a substantial turnaround from the Government’s previous position. But, at the last, the amendment falls short. It places the option to decide not on whether principal agreements have been signed—for that will be evident, or not, at the time of departure—but on what one might call an interim stage on a fall-back which provides for circumstances where, at the beginning of a period of 28 days prior to exit, agreements may not have been signed and completed, but will in the Secretary of State’s opinion have been so signed before that 28-day period is up. In other words, there is a very abbreviated, but nevertheless significant, period during which the Secretary of State will decide whether treaties are going to be signed. That will, in effect, be putting off the relevant request to the European Council for an extension of the time during which Euratom provisions hold, because the Secretary of State thinks it is, after all, going to be all right. That is a far shorter period than under the original general provisions that the Secretary of State said he would try to organise and get right in time for exit from the EU, but we are still back to that assumption that it will be “all right on the night” with no complete plan B in place. I accept that the amendment in lieu proposed by the Government comes a very long way, and that it has taken a considerable amount of U-turning, if we want to call it that, to put in place these arrangements, but in reality it is not quite far enough.

Ben Bradley: It was a pleasure to serve with the hon. Gentleman on the Bill Committee. Does he agree that the Government’s new approach offering more flexibility and the ability to take a common-sense approach based on the circumstances at the time is a better approach than an inflexible decision taken now which might not fit the circumstances next year?

Alan Whitehead: I am not sure that the term “inflexible decision” can be accurately addressed to this set of circumstances, because we have a very inflexible date by which these decisions will have to be made. If we have a provision that is based on the Secretary of State deciding whether things are going better or worse, and if the House then does not have time to apply to the European Commission for an extension, an objective judgment will be made about whether to make an application to the European Commission for an extension of Euratom’s overview, particularly in relation to nuclear safeguarding activities.
That is another reason why we seek to preserve the original clause and ensure that it goes into the final Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) mentioned nit-picking in respect of some of the wording of the amendment. It would have been possible, I think, to fix that wording without diluting the effect of the clause in the way the Government have done through their amendment in lieu. It still has the flaw in it that there is a period when the Secretary of State has the option to decide whether he thinks something is going to be done, as opposed to the absolute guarantee that it will have been done at the point of departure. For that reason, we seek to preserve the original clause, if necessary by means of a vote. Depending on the result of that vote, we might then offer the amendment in lieu back to the other place for it to decide whether it thinks it comes close enough to its intention not to be sent back to this House once more.

Stephen Kerr: I do not intend to detain the House with a long speech, but I want to commend the Minister on the way in which he has guided the Bill to this point and to assure him of my support for the amendment that he has tabled. He has been, and is being, attentive and responsive to the concerns he has heard; he has listened and responded, and I believe that that is what makes for good legislation. I also wish to add to his compliments to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), whose positive contribution to the progress of this Bill has been greatly appreciated by us all.
To be clear, we need this Bill. Leaving the European Union creates the necessary, even if unwanted, step of leaving Euratom. The Government’s stated preference is for Euratom to continue to provide safeguarding functions in the UK. That is a laudable example of the pragmatic approach that the Government, and in particular the Prime Minister, are taking to issues surrounding our departure from the European Union. I like to think that my conservatism is based not on ideology but on pragmatism, and it is pragmatism that is going to see us through the process by which we leave the European Union. This Bill is a vital contingency plan, because if it transpires that we cannot agree with Euratom to continue with the civil nuclear safeguarding, we will need to have the regulatory framework, the infrastructure and the capabilities in place to maintain our international obligations and responsibilities as an independent and responsible nuclear state.

Bob Stewart: I was under the impression that we cannot remain in Euratom unless we are a member of the EU—we may want to, but we cannot, according to the rules.

Stephen Kerr: My hon. Friend has the power of mind-reading because the next thing I wish to say is that given that it will not be possible for us to maintain Euratom membership, the Government have taken the realistic approach of declaring through the process of the current round of negotiations that we would like to achieve an “as close as possible” relationship with Euratom, however that might ultimately be described. Although there is no such thing today as an associate membership, perhaps it is possible to become an associate of some form or another to the end of achieving that “as close as possible” relationship that we desire.

Kwasi Kwarteng: My understanding is that we as a country want to leave Euratom. Does my hon. Friend agree that opening up a suggestion that we could have associate membership muddies the waters slightly in terms of the clarity of the debate?

Stephen Kerr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I do not think it does. The Minister has made it clear during the passage of the Bill that although we are leaving the European Union and our membership of Euratom will therefore end, we still want as close a relationship as possible with Euratom. The Government have been absolutely clear in their determination on this. They stated in a written statement published last September that
“it is vitally important that the new domestic nuclear safeguards regime, to be run by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, is as comprehensive and robust as that currently provided by Euratom. The government has therefore decided that it will be establishing a domestic regime which will deliver to existing Euratom standards and exceeds the standard that the international community would require from the UK as a member of the IAEA.”
I hope that the Minister will reconfirm tonight that it is still the Government’s intention to reach and maintain existing Euratom standards in respect to safeguarding. I recognise that it will take time to get to that point, but it would be useful if he indicated when he expects we will able to assume that we have everything in place to maintain the Euratom safeguarding standards, and if possible, how much that will cost.
I also commend my hon. Friend on his success in progressing towards his objective of putting in place what his amendment in lieu describes as “principal international agreements” and “corresponding Euratom arrangements”. These principal international agreements refer to and include the nuclear co-operation agreements that we will need to maintain because it is on the basis of these agreements that nuclear goods, including intellectual property, software and skills, can be moved between the UK and other countries. The Select Committee report summarised the evidence we heard and concluded that nuclear co-operation agreements were
“expected to depend on the existence of a mutually acceptable UK safeguards regime. Witnesses were concerned about any potential gap between leaving Euratom and setting up new arrangements, which would cause considerable disruption to nuclear supply chains”.
We also heard that
“nuclear cooperation agreements with the US, Canada, Japan and Australia will be crucial for maintaining existing operations and should be prioritised.”
I welcome the news that the Minister has brought to the House tonight about the IAEA, the draft voluntary offer agreement and the additional protocol. I also  welcome the US-UK nuclear co-operation agreement. Perhaps he will give us more detail on how long it will take for the agreement to be ratified. I referred earlier to the optimistic note that David Wagstaff, the head of Euratom exit negotiations at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, brought to our Committee, where he indicated that the co-operation agreements were
“well advanced and…would be completed in time for our departure.”
I have heard again tonight that that means March 2019.
With reference to the principal international agreements, perhaps the Minister will update the House on our negotiations with Canada, Japan and Australia. Will all Euratom’s existing nuclear co-operation agreements continue to apply to the United Kingdom until such time as new agreements can be established? It is vital that our civil nuclear industry can continue to operate with certainty and that there should be minimum to no disruption to the sector as we leave the European Union. Britain must be in a position to continue to honour its international obligations—

Layla Moran: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what “minimum” would be acceptable? I do not feel that any minimum disruption would be acceptable; for me, no disruption is the only possible scenario. What would his minimum be?

Stephen Kerr: The hon. Lady is right to pick me up on those words, and I am grateful for her intervention. Because the Prime Minister has successfully concluded the implementation agreement with the European Union, the minimum that we should settle for is no disruption, especially in this sector.
I was about to say that we as a country must be in a position to continue to honour our international obligations, and to be the responsible nuclear state that we are. The importance of this Bill, with this amendment, is that in the event of there being no agreement with Euratom, which is not what we want, it will enable the United Kingdom to be in a position to act as an independent and responsible nuclear state. That is why the amendment should command support on both sides of the House.

Drew Hendry: I should like to begin by echoing the remarks of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) about the Minister’s participation in the Bill so far. He has indeed been helpful, inclusive and relentlessly courteous as we have gone through the process. I welcome the progress that has been made, but that must be set against the background of what we believe to be the folly of leaving Euratom in the first instance. The last time the Bill came before us, I said that despite the Government’s ideological intention to abandon Euratom—it is ideological; there has been no attempt to challenge whether there might be a possibility to stay in it—their proposals fell short of answering vital questions on the UK’s nuclear future. Those answers have been asked for by the nuclear industry, the medical profession, our research sector and virtually everyone associated with nuclear power. Simply put, we should not be leaving Euratom.
Even with some sensible amendments from the Lords that have been accepted by the Commons, the Bill still fails to answer many critical concerns. As I have stated  before, we in the Scottish National party believe that the safest nuclear power is no nuclear power. In Scotland, we have demonstrated what can be achieved by alternative renewable energy sources, and there is still a vast potential to be tapped, especially offshore, for an abundance of low-cost clean energy. In contrast, the UK Government continue to chase the folly of new nuclear, including the white elephant that is Hinckley C. That means higher costs for consumers, and technologies whose capital costs continue to skyrocket.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that “no nuclear” can be squared with full participation in Euratom? If he had to choose one or the other, what would he decide?

Drew Hendry: I find the hon. Gentleman’s question rather odd. I shall come to the reasons that we support Euratom in a moment, but a no-nuclear future means that we still have to navigate the nuclear that we have at the moment, and the wider public need to understand the existing nuclear technology.

Kwasi Kwarteng: rose—

Drew Hendry: I want to make progress, because I am aware that Members wish to move ahead and I wish to accommodate that as much as I can.
On safeguards, at Dounreay in the highlands we have lived with the consequences of the UK’s previous regulatory regime. Decades on, we are still finding nuclear material that has simply been dumped or buried. For these reasons, and many more, while we work for a nuclear-free future, we recognise the vital need for the continuing protections and benefits that we have enjoyed through Euratom. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Turning to the Lords amendments, and the Government amendment in lieu, I should like some clarification from the Minister. On Lords amendments 1 and 2, I have said that providing clarification on the definition of “civil activities” is a sensible move, but is he in a position to enlighten us on the question put by Lord Hutton as to why the phrase, “for peaceful purposes”, has been defined in regard to electricity generation? I understand that Lord Henley, the Under-Secretary for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, was to write to Lord Hutton with a response to that question. However, I am not aware that there is anything on the public record on that issue, so I would be grateful if the Minister enlightened us.
Lords amendment 4 proposes a sunset clause, but I still do not think that the Government have fully answered the question as to why the sunset provision needed to be extended to five years from two years, so I would welcome clarification from the Minister. That being said, this is a sensible clause to add to the Bill.
I also agree with Lords amendment 5, which will mean that we receive a report for each three-month period in the years after the Bill is enacted. I note that the reports could include information on the development of the domestic operational arrangements required for the new domestic safeguards regime. Will the Minister outline what level of information he expects to provide? What information does he intend to include in the  reports? For example, will they include information on the profile of ongoing costs, including any increases, on skills, on the recruitment and skills opportunities for girls and women and on gender pay? Reports should also include a rolling risk register.
I also note that we are to expect, or “may” have, a report that includes information on future arrangements with Euratom, including on nuclear research and development and on the import and export of qualifying nuclear material. I listened carefully when the Minister said that he had “every confidence” about the situation. It is good that he does, but we should have a guarantee. As was said earlier, there should be no diminution of the current protection that we enjoy under Euratom. I remain concerned about radioactive isotopes, but I do not intend to go through the rationale that I presented in the previous debate for why they are vital—although if I did, I would make no apology for doing so. The medical profession is concerned about their future availability, and even if there are agreements about access to such isotopes, the question remains unanswered about how we are supposed to obtain them in a Brexit future that means no customs union. How are they going to get across the border in time, before their limited half-life has expired? I could say much more on that, but perhaps the Minister can tell us how he intends to overcome the customs barriers and get that material here.
The Scottish National party supports Labour’s position on Lords amendment 3, and if it comes to a vote, we will vote to disagree with the disagreement that the UK Government have brought forward. If the Minister was serious about giving Parliament assurances, he would accept Lords amendment 3, which was moved by a Cross-Bench peer. The amendment quite literally does what it says on the tin: no exit from Euratom if relevant and necessary agreements are not in place. Instead, in presenting their own amendment (a), the UK Government are again asking us to take things on trust and believe that everything will be all right on the night. That is not good enough when it comes to nuclear safeguards.

Rachel Maclean: The hon. Gentleman talks about taking things on trust, but does he not agree that we have just heard hard evidence from the Minister of other parties coming to the table and negotiating with us to put safeguards in place?

Drew Hendry: I am delighted that the hon. Lady intervened at that point, because I was just about mention that condition 2 in amendment (a) states that
“(a) one or more of the principal international agreements have not been signed, but
(b) in respect of each agreement that has not been signed, arrangements for the corresponding Euratom arrangements to have effect in relation to the United Kingdom after exit day—
(i) have been made”—
which would be fine—
“or (ii) will, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, have been made before exit day.”
That is simply not good enough. Given that we are already seeing a lack of transparency around Hinkley Point C and rising costs, and around what is happening in Anglesey at the Hitachi plant, we cannot take such  things on trust. It is vital that the Government are transparent on this issue now, because so much is at stake for people.
In conclusion, we have been advised that a deal has been struck with the USA, but will the Minister provide an update on the other agreements that need to be in place before the UK exits Euratom? After all, he expects us to take him at his word, so it should follow that we will be regularly updated on progress. In the interests of transparency, will he place the draft withdrawal agreement with Euratom in the Library? Although this is a reserved matter for the UK Government, the Scottish Government have regulatory powers on nuclear waste and emissions, so what discussions has he had with the Scottish Government to date on this issue? If he has had none, as I expect, what discussions does he intend to have?

Trudy Harrison: I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Minister’s opening statement. Of the 87,000 people working in the UK’s nuclear sector today, some 27,500 people—nearly 40% of the workforce—are based in Cumbria. That is why, in Copeland and in Cumbria, we proudly call ourselves the centre of nuclear excellence, and I am so pleased to hear from the Minister that swift progress is being made.
I have said before that not to have arrangements in place would be catastrophic for my community and devastating for the nuclear sector nationally and internationally and for all who rely upon the sector for energy: low-carbon electricity, fuel, research and development, science and industry, clean-up operations, defueling, decommissioning, reprocessing, waste processing —the list goes on. There would also be wider supply-chain implications from advance manufacturing to apprenticeships and implications for ensuring that we continue the legacy of world-class skills and for the enormous number of businesses employing people right across the country in component factories and on our high streets. In my community, that means hairdressers and hardware stores, taxi firms and teashops; the nuclear industry in west Cumbria puts food on so many of our tables. Britain’s nuclear industry equals our automotive industry in terms of value to the economy. It is a vital to our economy, our environmental obligations and our society. It is therefore absolutely right that the Bill is being given the kind of priority that the ministerial team are affording it.
I thank all those who have been working so hard and so collaboratively on this important issue. The priority for me and my community is the UK being able to operate as an independent and responsible nuclear state when the Euratom arrangements no longer apply to the UK. There is a strong consensus across Parliament on the importance of ensuring that the necessary measures are in place so that the UK nuclear industry can operate with certainty while meeting all international commitments. That is clear from speaking with people working in the 70-something nuclear businesses in my constituency, including my husband, who is in the Gallery tonight and celebrating his birthday by watching this debate.

Rachel Maclean: Will my hon. Friend forgive me if I take this opportunity to wish her husband a happy birthday?

Trudy Harrison: I thank my hon. Friend.
The importance of having measures in place is clear from speaking to those working in the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. It is also clear from reading the Minister’s report, published on 27 March, and no doubt from reading the next report, to be published in June, that the ministerial team is making considerable effort to address all concerns. I am grateful for the time that the Minister for Nuclear has spent with me and in my Copeland constituency. He has met many businesses in Copeland, including on his visit to Sellafield, to the Copeland Borough Council “Open for Business” event and to a Britain’s Energy Coast Business Cluster meeting. I know that he understands both our concerns and our capabilities.
To ensure that we will operate without interruption after the implementation period ends on 31 December 2020, the amendments introduced by the Minister will improve the transparency of negotiations and improve our understanding of the procedures being carried out. The progress being made will result in better, stronger industry confidence, and I welcome that. The definitions that will be included in the Bill are also welcome.
Amendment (a), in lieu of Lords amendment 3, will address the concerns raised in the other place. As I understand it, 28 days before exit day on 1 March 2019, if any relevant agreements are not signed and if no other equivalent arrangements have been made, the Secretary of State would have to ask the EU for corresponding Euratom arrangements to continue to have effect, providing vital secondary reassurance in the unlikely event that all measures are not fully in place.
I am pleased that the UK has now signed a bilateral nuclear co-operation agreement with the United States of America, as the agreement will allow the UK and the US to continue their mutually beneficial co-operation after the point at which Euratom arrangements cease to apply to the UK. The UK-US nuclear co-operation agreement will enter force at the end of 2020, following the conclusion of the implementation period of 21 months after the end of March 2019.
It is vital we have certainty and confidence that there will be no interruption to existing relationships that are underpinned by international agreements. I also welcome that the nuclear co-operation agreement has been drafted and signed on the same principles as the current Euratom-US nuclear co-operation agreement, with the same robust assurances on safeguards, security, transfers, storage, enrichment and reprocessing in relation to the transfer of nuclear material and related items between the United Kingdom and the United States.
All that is relevant to my Copeland businesses and constituents, who rely on the nuclear industry for their livelihoods, and vital so that the country can continue to generate electricity, carry on reprocessing operations and continue with the decommissioning and legacy clean-up operations in Britain and abroad.
I urge Government officials to ensure that the same swift, smooth, effective transaction agreements are prioritised with Australia, Canada and, especially, Japan, with which my constituency businesses are working very closely. World-leading and innovative clean-up, defueling and decommissioning work must continue. Skills and products are being invented and deployed to support the Fukushima clean-up.
Companies such as React Engineering, based in Cleator Moor, have worked with Sellafield to develop brand  new technologies and techniques to deal with incredibly complex situations. It is in everyone’s interest that this essential work is carried out, without interruption, as we leave the EU and Euratom. The last nuclear reactor to be constructed in Britain was Sizewell B, completed in 1995 using imported pressurised water reactor technology. Since then, no nuclear power plants have been completed. The UK’s capability to design and build a nuclear power plant has been dissipated, and the renewal of the nuclear programme has been dependent on overseas technology and nuclear systems suppliers, so it is all the more important that we ensure that the international nuclear co-operation agreements are fit for purpose and in place.
This is surely a depressing situation for a country that led the way in nuclear development. I share the widely expressed concerns about the energy trilemma: the need to keep costs down, to ensure the security of supply and to reduce carbon. There must be a concerted cost-reduction emphasis, supported financially and in policy terms, and I urge the Government to consider becoming much more directly engaged in the nuclear fleet deployment to revitalise the UK nuclear industry.
Diversification of the industry is already happening in Copeland, as companies such as Shepley Engineers, for which my husband works as a welder and which was started at Sellafield in the late 1940s, are now winning contracts across the country. Such companies are deploying their highly skilled workers, who are very experienced and competent at working safely, in highly regulated environments and in extreme conditions. As I speak, the Shepley Engineers workforce are above us fixing the roof and deploying their reverse-engineering techniques to complex and ancient systems. They are replacing the cast-iron tiles and giving the stonework a new lease of life, and they are also working at considerable height on the Elizabeth Tower, always with safety as their principal concern.
It is brilliant that those skills, that expertise and that precision working are in demand across Britain and beyond, but what I really want, and what the industry is crying out for, is for our globally envied skills in nuclear to be valued, employed and deployed, grown and exported as we develop, once again, a UK fleet of nuclear reactors of small scale, advanced breed and large scale to power the country and to export across the world—leading the way and making the most of our established and highly regarded reputation for excellence, innovation and British-built, safe reliability.
The Government’s industrial strategy speaks of grand challenges, pledging to
“put the United Kingdom at the forefront of the industries of the future”.
I agree with the statement that a truly strategic Government must do more than just fix the foundations, important as they are, and must plan for a rapidly changing future. The industrial strategy reports:
“Nuclear is a vital part of our energy mix, providing low carbon power now and into the future. The safe and efficient decommissioning of our nuclear legacy is an area of world-leading expertise.”
Let us not forget that this is our responsibility. This is not the kind of job that we should be leaving for our children and grandchildren to deal with.
We have enjoyed the power generated by nuclear, we have benefited from more than 70 years of highly skilled employment and we have learned many lessons along the way. Now, we are doing the responsible thing and cleaning up our legacy waste. Old and deteriorating storage facilities are nearing the end of their useful life at Sellafield, and it is our generation’s task to deal with this, both by prioritising safe storage and disposal and by investing in research and development to realise the full potential of the highest grade fissile material.
The research and development carried out at the national nuclear laboratory and at the Dalton nuclear institute, in partnership with universities and academia, and with the small and medium-sized enterprises in Copeland, is world leading. It is truly ground-breaking innovation that will transform the way we power our homes and businesses, our vehicles on this planet and travelling to others, and how we live our lives.
This Bill is an essential element of that work, and nothing should detract from its delivery. Today is a positive step in the right direction for our nuclear industry. I am so proud to be part of the journey, serving my community in this House. I commend this Nuclear Safeguards Bill, Lords amendments 1, 2 and 4 to 7 and amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 3.

John Woodcock: I rise to speak in favour of Lords amendment 3.
It is a pleasure, as ever, to follow the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison). She spoke powerfully about the contribution of civil nuclear power to our local economy. As she knows full well, every day several hundred people from my constituency go up that basket-case road and on that awful coastal rail line to Sellafield. I hope the Minister was not taken the long way around, and so avoided that awful bit of the A595 and that dreadful bit of the Cumbria coastline. Those routes are truly appalling, and we need his and his Department’s help in trying to unlock our dreadful logjam with the Department for Transport.
Before I reach the substance of my brief remarks, I would like to say how nice it is to hear that the husband of the hon. Member for Copeland is in the Gallery and that she has brought him to hear her speak on Lords amendment 3 to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill for his birthday. That shows, despite all the rumours to the contrary, people from Millom really know how to have a good time. [Laughter.] I really should not say that, given the boundaries may expand and I might end up asking for the votes of the people of Millom at the next election.
In this place and elsewhere, we often end up getting cross with the wrong people. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Minister because, as has been talked about at length in the Chamber today, he has listened. If we were to tally the people who are broadly on the right side of this debate, he would be one of them. The people we should be cross with—those who made the wrongheaded, deeply Europhobic decision to exit Euratom at the time of our leaving the European Union—are not here. We still do not accept the legal advice that he quotes. To my knowledge—he could set us straight either way—even when the Government are talking about associate Euratom status, or whatever is put in place, they will still not accept the jurisdiction of the European Court in those decisions, although I believe they have already conceded this in other areas, such as civil aviation.
The hon. Member for Copeland spoke well about the importance and power of the civil nuclear industry. She posited this Bill as essential to it, and in one case it is, but let us not forget that the Bill is necessary only because of that wrongheaded decision to leave Euratom, which, even at this late stage, could still be unpicked. Surely this is just common sense. The Lords considered these amendments at great length, and I had the privilege of reading back the speech of my predecessor, Lord Hutton of Furness, who was saying how catastrophic this would be not only for the many, many thousands of jobs currently in Sellafield and for the up to 18,000 jobs that could come through as part of the NuGen power station in Moorside, but for our whole energy security framework. In the words of Lord Hutton, it is not right for us to be playing fast and loose with this.
I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will reconsider the opposition to the well-put proposal from the Lords. Ultimately, however, there is still time for the Government to make this decision and say, “Forget this, we don’t have to pursue associate membership. We don’t have to enact all of this scrabble to get new nuclear inspectors in place.” He may tell me if I am wrong about this, but if we have Euratom status, will these inspectors that we are recruiting be needed? We do not have to go through with this process if the Government swallow their collective pride and admit they were wrong to put us on the path to leaving Euratom in the first place.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak tonight as I spoke in this important debate at an earlier stage—on Second Reading. I was pleased to hear the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), who gave a good, comprehensive analysis of why civil nuclear power and the nuclear industry are so important, not only to her constituency but to the country as a whole. In this debate, we tend to get forgetful about the immense contribution Britain has made to the nuclear industry and nuclear science. At the beginning of the 20th century, we had people such as Thomson and Rutherford, and others in the Cavendish laboratory at Cambridge and at other universities. They pioneered nuclear technology and advances in the nuclear industry. It is sad to hear speeches in this House that yet again undermine, frustrate or seek to question our capacity to get this right and to institute safeguards.
In that regard, the Bill is an excellent piece of legislation. It is sensible and it tries to construct a framework that will allow us to leave Euratom and go our own way. After all, we are members of the International Atomic Energy Agency—it has a structure and about 169 countries as members—and we should celebrate that. To hear people in this Chamber, one would think that without Euratom we were absolutely nothing and there would be no safeguards and no industry. We have heard the doom-mongering prophecy of thousands of job losses, to which the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) alluded in his mildly entertaining speech. We have had all these bugbears and goblins, and all this terror, held before us, but we are taking a simple step: we are going to leave Euratom and institute our own Bill, as we are doing, that will provide for safeguards in the industry. We also have the IAEA as a backstop. All this fear-mongering and these doom-laden prophecies of job losses are grossly exaggerated.
The other thing to say on the amendments is that in eight years in this House I cannot remember a Government who have been so accommodating and open to amendments as we have been on this Bill. In general, we see Governments, including the one of which I am a member, rejecting amendments; sometimes the amendments make sense and often they do not. In this instance, I have been surprised and impressed by the fact that our Front Benchers and the Government as a whole have adopted many of the amendments proposed in the Lords.
I want to talk a little about the House of Lords amendments and the processes they are going through. The job of scrutiny that the Lords are doing is good, but in the context of Euratom and debates about the EU there is a suspicion—I am not saying that all the people in the other place are influenced in this way—that a lot of these debates and institutions are being set up as straw men with which to block Brexit. When people say we should stay in this or that institution, there is always the suspicion of it being a rearguard fight to reverse the decision of the referendum of June 2016 and somehow to stay in the EU by other means. I am not suggesting the majority of their lordships are influenced by that, but in these debates there is always the suspicion that people are trying to use proxies and excuses to prolong our membership, unnecessarily, of these European institutions.
Euratom is a creature not of the EU but very much of the philosophy that was underpinning countries of western Europe coming together. I believe Euratom was established in 1957, roughly at the same time as the treaty of Rome, but we did not actually join it until 1973. To hear some of these speeches, one would think that we had no nuclear industry and no nuclear expertise before we joined Euratom. As I was trying to suggest, that is, of course, completely false.

Layla Moran: Would the hon. Gentleman perhaps concede that he has misunderstood the amendment? It says that its provisions would be invoked only if everything had not been agreed. It does not say that we would stay in Euratom in perpetuity; it simply says that we would stay in until the point at which every single i had been dotted and every single t had been crossed.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I accept that it is a clever amendment. I accept that on the face of it, it says that it is just a backstop, there purely to ensure that if we do not have the right treaties in place we get to stay in Euratom forever and ever, but the hon. Lady and I know that the people who composed the amendment do not expect all the relevant treaties to have been signed in the short timeframe available. I suggest, perhaps cynically—perhaps the hon. Lady will challenge me on this—that the clever amendment is simply a ruse to prolong our membership of Euratom. Call me an over-cynical man of superstition, but a lot of my constituents, if they pay any attention to this issue, would come to the same conclusion.

Layla Moran: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me a second go. In a sense, we are all rooting for the Minister, in the hope that he will come to a complete set of agreements in time. We all want that, and as soon as he does that, the amendment’s provisions will no longer apply. There is no issue, because if it all happens, it is fine, and even if it does not happen, the amendment will no longer apply as soon as it does happen. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument; it does not make logical sense.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s interventions. All I am suggesting is that what we have seen in the other House and heard in speeches there over several weeks is a consistent and concerted attempt to reverse the verdict of June 2016. I feel that this Euratom debate—I spoke on Second Reading—has been very much a proxy debate about the merits of the EU, which it should not have been. I have every confidence that the Government have the right safeguards in the Bill. I do not feel that the British civil nuclear industry is under any threat whatsoever. With the IAEA, we have in place the right structures. The scaremongering and doom-laden prophesies should be set aside, we should encourage the Government and we should reject the Lords amendments.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3.
The House divided:
Ayes 306, Noes 278.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 3 disagreed to.
Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 3.
Lords amendment 1, 2 and 4 to 7 agreed to.

Barbara Keeley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the urgent question on the Learning Disabilities Mortality   Review earlier on, which had been published at 8 am on Friday 4 May with no press releases or advance copies in the middle of the local election results, the Minister of State for Care said:
“It is an independent document and the University of Bristol decided when it was going to be published. It was published on Friday without permission from or any kind of communication with the Department of Health and Social Care.”
However, the Secretary of State had told the House in December 2016:
“As the programme develops, all learnings will be transferred to the national avoidable mortality programme. I have today asked the LeDeR programme to provide annual reports to the Department of Health on its findings”—[Official Report, 13 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 622.]
What the Minister of State said today cuts directly across what the Secretary of State told the House, which was that he intended annual reports to be made to the Department of Health. Since our urgent question, the programme itself has clarified this on social media. It said that following claims made by the Care Minister in Parliament,
“we would like to clarify that @NHSEngland chose when to publish the #Leder report and directed all communications.”
Given that clarification from the programme itself, has the Minister of State or the Secretary of State asked to correct the record?

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Lady wishes to put her point on the record and, by raising a point of order, she has done so. I am quite certain that the Treasury Bench will have taken note of what she has said. She, like all Members of this House, will know that it is not a matter for the Chair what an individual Minister says at the Dispatch Box. Therefore, I cannot give her any ruling on the matter, but she has sought to put her point on the record, and she has succeeded in doing so.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (TODAY)

Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, proceedings on the Motion in the name of Jeremy Corbyn relating to Criminal Legal Aid Remuneration may continue, though opposed, for 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of, and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) will not apply.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Criminal Legal Aid

Richard Burgon: I beg to move,
That the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 (S.I., 2018, No. 220), dated 20 February 2018, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 February, be revoked.
The gravest consequences for anyone accused of a serious crime in our criminal justice system is that their liberty is taken away from them. When that is at stake, no one should be left unrepresented in a court. When that is at stake, we have a duty, as a society, to guarantee the future of effective legal representation. Failing to do so creates the real risk of injustices. This motion today is about the threats posed to our justice system and specifically to criminal defence by the Government’s changes to the payments for the criminal legal aid system. These changes are why around 100 chambers are now, in effect, striking, taking co-ordinated industrial action, and refusing more publicly funded work. The serious consequences of this action are clear for all to see. As the BBC reported on 4 April:
“A murder case at the Old Bailey has become one of the first to be affected by a strike by barristers.”
On 9 April WalesOnline explained:
“A woman accused of murdering Swansea pensioner John Williams has appeared in Crown Court without legal representation because of a barristers’ strike.”
There are many other examples.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Bar was strongly in favour when this was consulted on, with statements such as
“the bar council and the young barristers committee welcome new proposals published today”,
and
“as circuit leaders over the period of the negotiations it is our shared view that we should support the implementation of the scheme”.
The Criminal Bar Association was in favour. So what exactly is the hon. Gentleman talking about?

Richard Burgon: Well, this is not the CBA’s scheme and it does have serious concerns about aspects of this provision. Tonight is an opportunity for the Government to think again and make some sensible concessions on the most controversial aspects. If everyone was happy with the measures, the criminal barristers would not have voted by 90% to take strike action.
We have a responsibility to contribute to resolving this situation by encouraging negotiation and facilitating a solution before there is further escalation. That means that the Government should withdraw these controversial changes, go back to the drawing board and come up with a scheme that attracts widespread support, rather than provoking a backlash.

Simon Hoare: Given the importance of what the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks about the right of representation in court—a very serious procedure indeed—does he not agree that barristers withdrawing their services in strike protest is not serving justice at all, and that there should be another way for them to seek redress? Will he take this opportunity to condemn the strike?

Richard Burgon: I will not be taking this opportunity to condemn our barristers because I do not condemn our barristers. The hon. Gentleman may wish to ask whether we support the action. Yes, we support it. We deeply regret the fact that the Government have pushed the barristers into this position. We want the Government to take this opportunity to think again and listen to people who have been backed into a corner.

Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend agree that this action is the cumulative effect of years and years of assault on honest, hard-working lawyers who represent clients? These people are not at the top of the profession in terms of their income or their futures; they are people who are committed to individuals in very difficult situations, and it is the Government who have let them down.

Richard Burgon: My hon. Friend makes an important point eloquently. For many of the barristers I have spoken to, this really is the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Before I touch on the precise concerns that have been raised about the new scheme, I will briefly look at the wider context that has caused this issue to be so controversial. As I have said, in many ways this issue is the straw that broke the camel’s back in the justice sector. Our justice system is at tipping point. The deep crisis unleashed by drastic cuts could soon become an emergency. In some areas, it already has.

James Cartlidge: The hon. Gentleman is talking about cuts. Does he accept that, had Labour won the 2010 general election, it too would have made substantial cuts to the Ministry of Justice budget based on its own manifesto promises?

Richard Burgon: Things have moved on since the 2010 general election.
Since 2010, the budget of the Ministry of Justice has fallen by 40% in the deepest cuts of any Department. A further £600 million—around 10% of the MOJ’s budget—is to be cut in the next two years. It is a system that has already been cut to the bone. The crisis in our prisons is driven by staff and budget cuts, as has been well documented. It has been less well documented that 100 or so courts have been sold off for little more than the price of the average UK house, having negative impacts on victims and witnesses. What has also not been discussed as much as it should have been is the fact that youth offending team budgets have been decimated, with central Government funding halved over the past few years, or the fact that probation privatisation is failing despite hundreds of millions of pounds more recently going into bailing out these failing private companies. But it does not stop there, because on top of this, there are big reductions in police numbers and big reductions in the Crown Prosecution Service budgets. In 2016, the Public Accounts Committee told Members of Parliament that the criminal justice system was at breaking point. After years of cuts, the system is clearly now broken. Let us be clear: an underfunded system risks yet more victims being denied justice and risks yet more miscarriages of justice.
Today we are discussing cuts related to legal aid. Our democracy and the rule of law, despite the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) advocating people  being banned from not going to work, depends on people being able to defend their rights. Our welfare state, created in the aftermath of the second world war, was about defending people’s basic human rights. It was about guaranteeing every citizen access to the human rights of education and healthcare but also of access to justice. In civil cases, when people cannot access justice, the consequences are grave.

Sandy Martin: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the basic fundamentals of our society is equality before the law, and that without access to legal aid, very many people are being denied equality before the law?

Richard Burgon: If people do not have access to justice—access to legal representation—and are not equal before the law, then basically some of our hard-won rights are not worth the paper they are written on. My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
As I said, in civil cases, when people cannot access legal aid, the consequences are grave. To illustrate that idea, let us look at what has happened in recent days and recent weeks. A migrant, or perhaps someone who was thought to look like a migrant, is not able to get legal advice after the Government slashed access. Without legal help, as I said, the rights that we have—often rights hard won by social justice campaigners across the decades—are simply not worth the paper they are written on.

Mike Kane: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. My constituent Caitriona McLaughlin works in the particular area of migrants and justice. With the Bar refusing to take new work at the new rates, she says that more and more people will suffer miscarriages of justice because of this statutory instrument. Does he agree with her?

Richard Burgon: I do agree. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point from his constituent’s experience. That is why I have been forced to bring this motion before the House to revoke the statutory instrument.

Jonathan Djanogly: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Burgon: I will make some progress if that is okay.
The crisis in legal aid goes much wider than the civil sector, with criminal cases affected too. As I said, that has the gravest of consequences. We now have more people representing themselves, even in the most serious of criminal cases—those tried at the Crown court. I want to draw the House’s attention to Ministry of Justice research published last week. The summary paper —only a summary—was published only after dogged pressure from journalists like Emily Dugan. It highlights judges’ concerns about people representing themselves, referring to
“unrepresented defendants not understanding how to present evidence about their case at hearings, how to prepare defence statements, or how to ask questions in court.”
The obvious result of this is that some judges and prosecutors felt that those who appeared in court without a lawyer were more likely to be found guilty. The legal  system should not be skewed towards wealthier people. Everybody who wants it should have access to proper legal representation if charged with a criminal offence. Justice should be blind. It should also not be based on the depth of people’s pockets. We now have criminal barristers forced to take co-ordinated action in refusing to take up legal aid work because of changes to the Government’s funding scheme.
Labour Members are proud to have submitted this motion to annul the legislation changing the scheme through which criminal defence advocates are paid for carrying out publicly funded work in the Crown court—the so-called advocates graduated fee scheme. The motion has now won the backing of over 130 Members of Parliament. We welcome the fact that, albeit belatedly, time was given for a parliamentary vote to annul this legislation.
I hope that Conservative Members who understand and respect our legal system and the importance to justice of proper access to criminal defence will not vote along party lines tonight. I hope they will help to forge a consensus that helps the Government to rethink this flawed scheme.

Victoria Prentis: When these negotiations were in process, Bar circuit leaders said:
“As the Circuit Leaders over the period of the negotiations, it is our shared view that we should support the implementation of this proposed scheme.”
Does the hon. Gentleman not think it is important to listen to those who are working in our criminal courts day after day?

Richard Burgon: It is not the Criminal Bar Association’s scheme. The CBA has serious concerns about the controversial aspects of the scheme. If the scheme were fine, 90% of criminal barristers would not have voted to take this action. It is clear that something has gone wrong and that the Government have backed these barristers into a corner rather than forging the consensus we need.
The Government’s scheme fundamentally changes the way in which criminal defence advocates are paid for carrying out publicly funded work in the Crown court. The new fee system means that the vast majority of cases will now receive a flat fee for a case, so that a case with 250 pages pays the same as a case with 5,000 pages. A rape case with a single complainant and defendant will have the same fee as a rape case involving multiple victims and multiple defendants. That disincentivises lawyers from undertaking complex cases, which often require weeks of preparation.

Andrew Slaughter: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. The main losers in this are senior-level junior practitioners, who prepare and research complex cases. There is no fee for looking at prosecution disclosure, which means there is a greater chance of miscarriages of justice. Is this not completely misconceived in the way it has been put together? As he says, it will simply lead to cases either not being taken or not being prepared to the standard that they should be.

Richard Burgon: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We cannot tolerate a situation where either the guilty walk free or the innocent go to prison.
The scheme fails to recognise the growing work required to deal with the increasing amount of evidential and unused material. Advocates are expected to consider that material without specific payments, however much additional material is served. That is especially worrying, given the fact that a series of trials, including rape trials, have recently collapsed because of failings in the disclosure of evidence.
Despite Government promises of cost neutrality, the CBA says that the scheme amounts to a £2 million cut, and no future-proofing is built into it, resulting in a year-on-year inflationary cut. The new scheme does not address the damage caused to the system by substantial real-terms cuts to legal aid rates over recent years of 40%. As a result of these reductions, there are pressing concerns about the ability to retain younger barristers and recruit the next generation into criminal defence work. After two decades without any sort of basic cost-of-living pay rise, criminal law is no longer an attractive career option for young solicitors or young barristers entering the system saddled with debt, and others are leaving because of the increasingly unreasonable demands made on them to do more and more for less and less.

Karen Buck: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. On the issue of recruitment, is he not particularly concerned that if the Bar is to reflect the whole of society and is to draw more widely on people from less privileged backgrounds, black and minority ethnic backgrounds and so forth, it is essential that a career at the Bar is seen to provide a reasonable income?

Richard Burgon: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are running the risk, with the path we have been taking in recent years in the justice sector, of the death knell being sounded on social mobility in the legal professions.
These changes also threaten the insufficient but none the less hard-won progress made on diversity and, as my hon. Friend says, social mobility. That has profound consequences, not just for people hoping for a career in the law but for public trust, as the judicial professions and institutions cease to reflect the communities they are there to serve. As Lady Justice Hallett has explained,
“cuts to legal aid and the publicly-funded criminal justice system will set back the cause of improving diversity on the bench.”
Criminal solicitors face similar problems with their fee scheme—the litigators graduated fee scheme. They have not received any fee increase since 1998, and the number of firms in England and Wales registered for criminal defence work has recently fallen from 1,600 to 1,200. The profession is in crisis, with an ageing demographic profile. In fact, new Law Society data paint a very bleak picture indeed of “advice deserts”, where the remaining criminal solicitors will retire and no younger solicitors are coming in to take their place. That is hardly surprising when Young Legal Aid Lawyers figures show that 53% of survey respondents earn less than £25,000 per year, and those figures relate to people qualified for up to 10 years.

Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend agree that the combination of the closure of courts and the reduction in the number of solicitors firms in market towns across the country is having a massive impact on these towns, and Conservative Members just do not seem to believe in a Britain that supports its local towns?

Richard Burgon: That is a very important point. The whole swathe of court closures that have occurred have really done damage to the principle of justice accessible to all and delivered locally, so that point is very important.
The Law Society has issued judicial review proceedings against the Government in relation to further cuts to solicitors’ fees for Crown court work, and that crisis is not one that will go away. The issue for barristers will not be settled if the Government vote against our motion and carry on regardless. I understand that there is a presumption that barristers are all highly paid and some will want to paint this as being about more money going to the wealthy, but the CBA briefing points out that average pre-tax pay is about £28,000. Barristers are self-employed and the headline figures often exclude expenses, including the costs of office space, travel, staff, insurance, pension and sick pay, which the CBA estimates account for about half of a barrister’s turnover.
To draw my remarks to a conclusion, I want to cite an anecdote published by one criminal defence lawyer:
“Today I helped a colleague out by prosecuting the sentencing hearing in one of his cases, in a court 94 miles away from my home. The fee for that hearing is £60. £10 of that goes straight to my chambers as rent. I spent £33 on petrol and £6.30 on parking. The CPS do pay some travel—I think I’ll get £23.50 for this. Therefore, I come out with £34. The offence, by the way, was an assault on a baby. It was a 2pm hearing, so I left home at 10 and got home at 5. During those 7 hours, apart from the 10 mins I spent eating my packed lunch, I was either driving, getting ready for the hearing, in court, or explaining the outcome (a prison sentence) to the baby’s family. I don’t wish to sound ungrateful for my £34. I just can’t help but feel a little undervalued. I’ve been at the criminal Bar for 9 years. The government decides how much to pay me, and I think they take advantage of me, my skills, and my sense of public duty. #TheLawIsBroken”.
I hope you will forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if, when the hon. Member for North Dorset, who has left the Chamber, invites me to condemn people such as that barrister, I do not do so. I hope you will forgive me if, when the hon. Gentleman who has left says that this person should be forced to go to work, I say that I do not agree with such a cruel and detached analysis.
The Government will say that they sought consensus on these issues, and that the Ministry of Justice has worked with the CBA and the Bar Council, although there are different accounts of those talks. The truth of the matter is that the Government have failed, as hundreds of barristers are now taking direct action. They have failed, as there is press speculation of further barrister action if they press on with this scheme tonight, with walkouts and returns not being done, which would send our courts into chaos. The Government have failed, as people in our justice system are being affected. Whatever one makes of it, the Government’s approach has not created consensus; it has created a backlash. When they are in a hole, the Government should stop digging.
The Criminal Bar Association has made a formal request for the Ministry of Justice to delay, withdraw, amend or reconsider the implementation of this statutory instrument. The Government should listen to the CBA, not deny that there is a problem. They should put the new scheme on hold and set about fixing it. To do that, they should do the right thing in tonight’s vote. I commend the motion to the House.

Lucy Frazer: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this debate, which relates to the value of the independent Bar. It is therefore important for me, as a former barrister: I understand very clearly the role that advocates play in justice. The work done by the criminal Bar, day in, day out, up and down the country, is a fundamental part of our justice system. It is criminal barristers, criminal advocates, who ensure that people, often at the most desperate time of their lives, get the opportunity to have their points put coherently and effectively, when their futures are on the line, ensuring justice. I start by acknowledging and thanking criminal barristers for the hard work that they do.
The Lord Chancellor and I have heard many concerns about the wider justice system in the short four months since we took office. We take those concerns very seriously and we are committed to ensuring that there is an efficient and effective support for those who go through our court system. We want people to have every confidence in every part of their justice system. We want a system that supports victims and ensures a smooth and efficient process for litigants, and a legal profession that is enticing at every level for those who want to work within it.
Those are all important points, but the hon. Member for Leeds East has prayed against a statutory instrument. In the interests of advocates affected by that instrument, we should now focus on the issues that it raises. It is appropriate to start with four clear facts. First, this scheme was put together in close co-operation with the Bar leadership. Secondly, the scheme does not bring in a cut; at the very least, it is cost neutral, but it is more likely to give rise to an increase in expenditure, given that built into the calculations is a £9 million risk of such an increase. Thirdly, the scheme is more advantageous to the Bar overall than the one it replaces, particularly for those at the junior end. Fourthly, a clear commitment was given at the time the scheme came in that the Government would review it in 18 to 24 months. If, in the course of that review, legitimate concerns are raised about the system and a good case is made for investment, we will look at those proposals.

Sandy Martin: rose—

Lucy Frazer: I am very happy to give way.

Sandy Martin: I thank the Minister. If she believes that her Government’s changes to legal aid have not been damaging to the profession, will she explain why there is not one single criminal law solicitor aged under 35 in Suffolk—or indeed in Norfolk, Cornwall or Worcestershire?

Lucy Frazer: Like the hon. Member for Leeds East, the hon. Gentleman raises a broad point about the justice system which I will come on to. On his specific point, it is of course important to have duty solicitors across the country doing legal aid. The Legal Aid Agency regularly reviews the geographical spread of the profession.
This is a debate about a statutory instrument and it is very important, for the advocates affected by it, that we focus on it. I would now like to expand on the four points I made.

Oliver Heald: I think everyone would acknowledge that to go out and do the job of a criminal barrister is incredibly demanding, and that the profession faces challenges of various sorts. On the negotiations on the advocates’ graduated fee scheme, great efforts were made to involve the Bar at every stage. The Legal Aid Agency put a huge amount of work into the talks, as did the Ministry of Justice. The intention was to find a better way of paying barristers, not to do anyone down. Does the Minister agree that the response to the consultation document, which was so positive, seems to have evaporated for some reason?

Lucy Frazer: My right hon. and learned Friend, who was a Minister at an early stage in this process, makes a very important point. The scheme we are debating today came about because both the Bar and the Government accepted that the old scheme was outdated. Advocates told us that it did not reflect the amount of time and effort they put into their cases. For example, under the old scheme there were no separate fees for the second day of a trial and there were no fees for a sentence hearing. The new scheme is the result of a two-year exercise involving the leadership of the Bar—the Bar Council—the Criminal Bar Association and the circuit leaders. When the scheme was put forward in a consultation in 2017 it was widely welcomed by those organisations.

Maggie Throup: I am not a lawyer, so it may be that I am looking at this issue in a very simplistic way. It seems that my hon. and learned Friend is saying that the professionals said that the old regime was broken, yet the Opposition seem to be arguing that they want to go back to that old regime. Can my hon. and learned Friend enlighten me on why the Opposition are opposing modernising the system?

Lucy Frazer: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, which is at the very heart of this debate. The old system is not supported by the Bar. It did not want that system. The new scheme is an improvement, so the answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that the Labour party is simply playing politics with an honourable and important profession.

Dominic Grieve: As the Minister knows, there is a continuing funding crisis at the Bar. The reality is that at some point the Government are going to have to face up to the very great difficulties facing the justice system. That is not the fault of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor; it is the situation he inherited. I have to say that I am in complete sympathy with the stance that my hon. and learned Friend is taking this evening. The scheme was wanted by the Bar and it is clearly an improvement on the previous system. Granted there are very great difficulties with funds, but it seems entirely reasonable for the Government to proceed with it.

Lucy Frazer: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention and recognition that this scheme was wanted. I hope I have conveyed that the Lord Chancellor and I recognise that where there are difficulties in the criminal justice system we will seek to ensure that we have the best possible criminal justice system and legal system. The scheme, which we are  voting on today, is the right scheme going forward. The proposal that it should be revoked and annulled is disadvantageous to the Bar and is simply politics.

Ian Lucas: Why then does the Minister think the barristers are taking action?

Lucy Frazer: The hon. Gentleman will have to ask the barristers why they are taking action, because the new scheme is more favourable.
The consultation was broadly welcomed by the organisations I mentioned earlier. I would like to provide just one quote among many. When the consultation was put forward in 2017, the then chair of the Bar Council said:
“The suggested scheme is a fairer way of rewarding advocates for their work”,
and that it is a
“a positive example of the Ministry of Justice participating in constructive dialogue with the profession”.
As with any consultation, suggestions were made to improve the scheme. It was said, for example, that it was not right that the initial scheme proposed was to be cost-neutral as against 2014-15. Concerns were also raised that it may have an adverse impact on junior advocates. The Ministry of Justice listened to those concerns and increased the amount in the scheme in line with the costs at the time, which increased the funding by £9 million. This allowed it to improve the scheme for junior advocates. The MOJ also assesses that the scheme will cost significantly more—approximately £9 million more—than anticipated.
The new scheme in this statutory instrument is better than the one it replaces. With this motion, which calls for the new scheme to be revoked, the hon. Member for Leeds East is disadvantaging those he professes to support. He says that it is a threat to our justice system, but the motion is playing politics. It puts party politics above supporting the right outcome. With the motion, the Labour party and those who intend to join them today are using the Bar and justice as a political tool for their own ends.

Andrew Slaughter: Minister, that is a silly thing to say, because the motion reflects the disquiet that has been expressed by the Bar. The hon. and learned Lady does not have the curiosity to ask barristers why they are unhappy; perhaps one reason is that the scheme was an alternative to a further 8.5% cut, which would have caused mayhem in the criminal courts. It is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Why does she not go back and ask the Bar who the losers are now, what the problems are and how they could be reformed, and why does she not take this away and look at it again?

Lucy Frazer: I am sorry if I misrepresented the position earlier. I have spoken regularly to a number of organisations that represent the leadership of the Bar. Over the last week, my Department has gone to chambers up and down this country. We have talked to them to understand their concerns about the scheme and to try to understand what position they prefer. We are extremely engaged in talking. The point I am making is that the new scheme is a better one. It was supported by the circuit leaders, the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council and the Young Barristers’ Committee, and about 15 press releases all support that position.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am very pleased to see my hon. and learned Friend in her place, with her knowledge and background. I will, of course, support the Government tonight, because I agree that this motion is playing politics with an issue, but I have a concern, which I have raised with her before. Following on from the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), I hope that after this the Government will address one of the problems that they face with the junior Bar, particularly here in London. I know, because my son is one of them, and he would tell us that those we want to encourage to come to the Bar, who would diversify the Bar, cannot afford to do so. This is a big crisis for us, otherwise we will end up yet again with a narrow Bar. I wonder whether the Minister might urge her colleagues and hon. Friends to think about that, because it is those who will come through to be the judges of the future.

Lucy Frazer: My right hon. Friend makes a really important point about recruitment at the Bar. The Ministry of Justice is of course concerned about this issue, but it is not just a problem for the MOJ. When I went to the Bar, Bar fees for the course were £5,000, and they are now £15,000. Asking people to pay that sort of money is a barrier to access when the chances of their getting a pupillage and a tenancy are limited.
I will highlight three points to show why asking to revoke the scheme, as the shadow Secretary of State is asking, disadvantages the Bar. First, he is saying by doing so that he does not want the additional funds that the new scheme is likely to produce, as against the old scheme. Secondly, he is asking junior barristers to go to sentence and other hearings for no fees. Thirdly, he is asking to retain a scheme that calculates fees on the basis of page count, which is wholly outdated.
As I suggested, it was right to focus on the statutory instrument, but it would be wrong not to correct some of the many inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the hon. Gentleman’s speech, which focused on broader issues. He made several comments about disclosure without even mentioning either that the Attorney General’s review is due to report this summer or the national disclosure improvement announced by the CPS and the National Police Chiefs Council on 26 January. He talked about recruitment and failed to mention my points about fees. He said that recruitment was falling—there is anecdotal evidence for that—but failed to mention that the number of pupillages at the Bar went up in 2016-17 to its highest level since 2013. Very importantly, it is good to note that there were more women than men in 2016-17. In fact, the total number of barristers at the Bar now in practice stands at 16,435 and is incrementally increasing year on year.
The hon. Gentleman sought very quickly to broaden out the debate by talking about cuts, but he failed to identify why the coalition Government had to make the cuts they did across the board after 2010. It was because the Labour Government overspent and increased our debt and deficit. A few weeks ago, I went to a school in my constituency to explain how Governments spend their money. I identified the different Departments of State, and we looked at the proportion of spending for each. If interest was a Department of State, it would be our fourth-biggest  in terms of expenditure, and that is because of the unreasonable and irresponsible decisions taken when Labour was in office.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about court closures. When 41% of courts and tribunals used less than half their available hearing capacity in 2016-17, it would be wrong not to look at our court estate. All the money from the sales is reinvested into the court estate, into our court buildings and court structure, and into technology, and that is alongside our billion-pound reform of the court process. I know that he is in favour of strikes of any kind, whether they are legal or illegal and whether or not they disadvantage ordinary members of society. I know that he favours disruption, demonstration and discontent over careful, constructive and collaborative processes, but the Conservative party believes in justice and that those who need representation should be entitled to it. We will continue to work with the profession to help them to protect the rule of law and the vulnerable people who come through our courts.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. With so many Members wanting to speak, I suggest that each Member aims to speak for about six minutes.

Bambos Charalambous: The fundamental principles of justice and the right to a fair trial have been enshrined in the English law since as far back as Magna Carta, and despite all the many different threats to the right to a fair trial since its signing in 1215, the biggest threat facing our country’s legal system is right here, right now, today. The constant chipping away at, and the catastrophic underfunding of, criminal legal aid has led to a broken justice system perilously close to collapse. Two years ago, the Public Accounts Committee stated that the criminal justice system was at breaking point. The Government have failed to heed those warnings, and we now have a situation whereby it is only through the extraordinary good will and willingness to go the extra mile of prosecutors and defence barristers that justice can be done.
I had an email on Sunday from one of my constituents who is a pupil barrister specialising in criminal law in her second six months of training. She told me that she had already been prosecuting cases, had had experience of being handed papers to prosecute a case at court on the day, had seen cases adjourned because of disclosure failures, and that this was not uncommon. She went on:
“I’m afraid that I won’t be able to earn enough to support myself, let alone enough to buy a home, start a family, retire with a decent pension. I hope I’ll be able to justify staying in this profession, which is so hard but which I already love so much, and which I’ve invested so much work and money in joining. I don’t need riches, but I need to be able to live, and my future clients will need me to be able to dedicate the time their cases require and deserve. I need to know I will be paid for my work, or I just won’t be able to do it. And where will we be if a thousand people in my position come to that conclusion, and there is no one to replace us?”
That is the point. Where will we be if we stop being able to attract people to practise criminal law? How many miscarriages of justice can we expect for defendants and victims as disclosures are made late, documents are not properly read, and defendants cease to be properly  represented? With more cuts planned in the Ministry of Justice, it is clear that this is a targeted assault on the criminal justice system, and that the Government have a flagrant disregard for the future of criminal justice.
The advocates’ graduated fee scheme is the means by which the Government hope to reap some of those cuts. AGFS spending has fallen by 40% since 2010, and given that the new scheme proposed in the regulations is meant to be cost-neutral, this is surely just a case of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The fact that the views of the Criminal Bar Association have not been listened to also leads me to conclude that the scheme is a sham, and exists purely to deliver cuts for the Government.
There are so many absurdities in the current AGFS system that one would think it had been devised in an “Alice in Wonderland” environment. Why—this question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—is an advocate who deals with a case involving 250 pages of evidence paid the same as an advocate who deals with one involving 5,000 pages? Why is someone handling a rape case with one defendant and one complainant paid the same as someone else handling a case involving multiple victims and multiple complainants? Why is there no recognition of the additional work involved in dealing with vulnerable witnesses, children or people with mental health conditions? Is a standard appearance fee of £90 really acceptable when the cost of catching a train to the court is significantly more? Is a fee of £125 for a sentencing acceptable? Why have fees not gone up since 2007? The Minister and others have claimed that this scheme is an improvement on the previous one, but an improvement on a terrible, failing scheme which makes it into a bad one is, for criminal barristers, no improvement at all.
The impact of the cuts in criminal legal aid will be felt for many years to come, as barristers and solicitors leave criminal justice in their droves. Why would anyone stay in a profession that is incredibly stressful when the pay is barely enough to survive on? Research conducted by Young Legal Aid Lawyers—lawyers with up to 10 years’ experience—revealed that 30% of respondents earned less than £20,000 and 83% earned less than £35,000. Throw into the mix tuition fees for undergraduates and the Bar Professional Training Course, which could leave them with debts of £50,000 or more, and we have a very unappealing set of factors that will repel applicants rather than attract them.
We are approaching a tipping point which, if not addressed, could have disastrous effects on the number of practitioners working in criminal law, and could also have an effect on the quality of the legal advice that people receive. We can forget any diversity or social mobility targets, because unless criminal legal aid is properly funded, only those who are able to afford to support themselves will enter the profession. That threatens the very right to a fair trial, which takes me back to where I started. Unless criminal legal aid is properly funded, which means tearing up the AGFS and starting again, this will sound the death knell for those practising criminal law. I say to the Minister, “You cannot do justice on the cheap.”

Bob Neill: It is a pleasure to follow my Justice Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous).
It is important that we are having this debate. I refer Members to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the fact that I have the honour to chair the Justice Committee. During the last Parliament and the one before it, the Committee considered a number of issues affecting remuneration of the Bar and the way in which we operate our criminal justice system, as well as broader issues, and we heard a great deal of evidence. There is no doubt that the debate touches on very serious issues to which there are no easy answers, but it is also a specific debate about a specific statutory instrument. I will therefore do my best, in the time available, to confine myself to its specifics, but I think it right to give a little of the context.
I speak as someone who practised for 25 years at the criminal Bar, who regards it as one of the finest things someone can do, who has friends still in practice at the Bar, and who is conscious of the hours that are worked and the things that are thrown at people at the last minute, that it is a demanding profession and is not well rewarded—and, arguably, is not rewarded as well as it should be in the circumstances. But we should take a step back from that, because some of the things we are talking about have, I regret to say, always been there. The last minute brief was a feature of my very early days in practice and continued all the way through it, and the large quantities of unused material that people were never paid for reading have also always been a feature of the scheme.
I do think, however, that we should perhaps look at future designs of the scheme now, because of the issues we have found around disclosure, which is ever more important and has grown with the use of digital and online material. We need to look again at whether it is reasonable not to fund people for reviewing the disclosure in these cases. I am conscious of that because I prosecuted a case which we rightly abandoned upon its second appeal when disclosure that should have been made was finally—some years too late, I am afraid, for the person serving the sentence—made to us. So we do need to take that seriously, but, again, it is not a part of the debate on this statutory instrument. That system has always been there, and revoking this statutory instrument will not solve the issue of payment for people dealing properly with disclosure, nor will it solve the issues of the late return or the late nights that we have always been used to. Those are broader matters.
It is also worth observing that the pressure on incomes at the criminal Bar, which I accept has been real and not made easy by extraneous factors such as the cost of training, has not occurred only under this Government or the coalition. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate referred to there being no increase in fees since 2007, but, going back further, the squeeze at the Bar started under the Blair Government, from 1997 onwards, so the idea that this has been placed upon the Bar by the current Government is not fair and is not based on the evidence.
It is clear that the Bar now has issues with the scheme. I am deeply saddened that colleagues and friends feel unable to accept work under the scheme. Is it perfect? No, I am sure it is not. Would it be better if more money could be found? Yes, I am sure that it would be. Is revoking the instrument going to solve that? No, I do not think it will. We need a much broader and maturely based debate about that.
I particularly take note of the intervention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), who was the Minister at the time and whom I have known since my earliest days at the Bar. I know he is an honest and trustworthy man and when he says that there was a real and genuine attempt to engage the professions in this, I know he is telling the truth. It is also worth bearing in mind that the best evidence is sometimes what is said at the time, and we have a number of quotations from that time that show very clearly that all the representative bodies at the Bar gave a broadly favourable welcome, on the basis that it was not perfect—they did not pretend it was—but it was an improvement on what was there.
The chairs and membership of the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and other representative bodies change annually. They cannot bind their successors and attitudes change, and I am not going to speculate on that. However, it is unfair to say that this was brought in by the Government against a backdrop of universal hostility, because that is not the case; broadly, a fair wind was given to it at the time. Issues have perhaps blown up subsequently, however, and many of us who keep in touch and follow this matter closely might suggest that the real problems are not purely around this statutory instrument, but that broader issues need to be addressed.
The most important things we need to do now do not include talking about the revocation of a scheme that could be improved. Instead, we must make the case for more funding for the criminal Bar. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) talks powerfully about his own experience, and friends and children of mine suffer exactly the same difficulty. It is a lot harder to start at the junior criminal Bar now than it was in my day, and that is not a healthy situation. We need a stream of bright, talented and dedicated young people coming through, and this issue deserves a longer and broader debate, in terms of both time and context, than the narrow one we are having now.

Victoria Prentis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the justice system stands or falls together, and that far from being broken, it is one of the finest justice systems in the world? It is worth £25 billion a year, and we need to ensure that all levels of the Bar, and our solicitor advocates, are supported in the work that they do.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are pressures and difficulties, and some areas of the system creak, but talking it down does no justice to anyone. At the end of the day, it is an immensely better system than anything else we have on offer. If we want to look at really badly funded systems, we can look across the Atlantic and to other places, which would horrify all of us. We are not in that situation, and I do not want to get into that situation, but we will only ever go forward if we can make a measured case for why, for example, it is cost-effective to have representation because litigants in person actually burn up more time and cost than if they were properly represented, and the trials take longer. Let us make the business case around that. That will not be done, however, by revoking this instrument or by people not accepting instructions—however great the temptation—and people going unrepresented. I hope that the Bar and the solicitors will feel able to get back round the table with the Ministry of Justice.
I was concerned to hear the powerful evidence given to the Justice Committee recently by the Criminal Law Solicitors Association. It was suggested that a duty solicitor was probably less well remunerated than a teacher with comparable experience. In a competitive world, that does not seem entirely fair. They are both demanding jobs, and we need to find a constructive way forward rather than walking away from these matters.

Bob Stewart: I have had contact with five junior criminal law barristers, and not one of them earns more than £21,000 a year. That means that after they have paid tax and expenses, they have to live on about 10 grand a year, in London.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend makes an important point; it was in fact the last point I was going to make. If we are to win this debate on fairer funding, we need to get back to a more honest awareness of the realities of remuneration. The press have something to answer for in that regard. It is all too easy to talk about fat-cat barristers and the occasional £1 million-plus fee, which usually relates to a case that lasted about 18 months and was of a highly complex nature. Those sorts of cases are not around any more, for a raft of reasons, and those reports wholly misrepresent the position of the vast majority of barristers, who are working on really modest take-home incomes. Above all, we forget the level of deductions that have to be taken out. My hon. Friend’s point is an entirely fair one. I want to see more money in the system, but that will only come from having a strong and well-managed economy. I want to see more money in the system, but I do not think that this is the right way to go about it.

Andrew Slaughter: The Chairman of the Select Committee is making a very good case, but he does not seem to be persuaded by his own advocacy. If this scheme corrects some of the anomalies of the previous scheme, it does so only by reducing the brief fees overall to below a level that was already extremely low. The purpose of annulling the statutory instrument is to make the Government go back and renegotiate on that basis. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept the logic of that?

Bob Neill: I do not accept that logic, persuasive though it might be, because annulling the SI would simply put us back on to the old scheme. I would prefer to bank what we have—imperfect though it is—and move on, pressing the Government to move more swiftly than Ministers currently intend to do on the review of the scheme, and starting to talk urgently, at the earliest possible date, with the Bar Council and the Law Society about what could be changed. I want improvements as much as Opposition Members do, but I happen to think that taking an unduly partisan approach does not serve the overall purpose of the matter.
An independent Bar, and an independent and robust solicitors profession, are a critical part of the rule of law. That is what it comes down to, and I do not accept that this is necessarily a welfare state issue, although I understand the point that the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) made. Ultimately, this is about ensuring the rule of law. That is the most important thing, and the system does have to be properly funded.  I say with some regret to Opposition Members that, although I have sympathy with many of the points made by the Bar and the solicitors in their evidence to us, annulling this SI is not the right route to go down. I would prefer a more consensual, evidence-based approach, and a calmer one. I hope that once this debate has passed, we will all be able to get down to that.

Jonathan Djanogly: I declare any interests that I may have as a non-practising solicitor. The criminal justice system in England and Wales faces many significant and structural problems, but placing all the blame on the regulations and tacking the Criminal Bar’s reaction to them at face value will not solve the underlying problems with which we need to contend. Having said that, my initial reaction to the current SI proposals was that, given the barristers’ strike and Opposition party protest in relation to alleged criminal legal aid cuts, I was somewhat surprised to read the impact assessment, which suggests no cuts and an increase spend on legal aid. That aside, the plans are, in themselves, positive and rational. The Minister has given a strong defence of them today, and they shall have my support.
We are tweaking a scheme that was put in place by Labour in 2007. Since then, effective case management has become rightly more of a priority. I can understand the desirability of unbundling the tasks in fee assessment and the key need to address huge increases in the amount of data now available through discovery. The Opposition and the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) are protesting too much. Labour in government repeatedly proposed reform of criminal legal aid and then repeatedly pulled back, instead resorting to fee cuts.

Alex Chalk: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party does not come to this matter with clean hands? In 2007, at a time of rising budgets for health and education, there was never more money for the Bar, even though it needed it. The Opposition’s remarks do not hold up.

Jonathan Djanogly: My hon. Friend is quite right. In fact, many, if not most, of the post-2010 coalition criminal legal aid cuts had been put in place by the losing Labour Administration. Furthermore, during debates on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, I recall the Labour spokesman saying that we should make required cuts to criminal legal aid, rather than to civil legal aid. Having engaged in the blame game, we could all just leave it at that, but that would be to once again avoid the harsh reality that we all now need to face up to, namely that this country’s criminal legal aid system is not fit for purpose and needs to be totally restructured.
While consultation with legal practitioners is important, we legislators need to be reminded that no significant reform to the legal professions has ever come about from the practitioners themselves. Someone in government, or indeed in opposition, is going to have to make a move on this. I will admit that the previous Labour Government made some useful justice reforms, much of which I had the honour to oppose from the Front Bench and on which we often worked co-operatively. Why are the Opposition not doing the same on criminal legal aid? Rather than just complain about it, why can  they not offer an alternative? The hon. Member for Leeds East told us what the Criminal Bar Association wants, but he did not say what he wants or what he believes, and I think he should.
The fundamental problem is that the legal market generally, and criminal law in particular, is totally fragmented, under-capitalised, technologically semi-illiterate and structurally redundant. Criminal practice is characterised by large numbers of barely profitable firms that are all too often unable to properly serve clients through lack of manpower, inability to invest in training of staff and trainees, and a lamentable lack of technology. I recall trying to persuade criminal defence solicitors to take prosecution evidence online rather than in paper bundles, but the resistance was ferocious. Why? Because large numbers of solicitors were running their small practices from their homes and could not afford to invest in the required technology. That type of inefficiency also goes to the Bar, with advocates often getting court papers late, which may have worked for the single lever arch file deposited in times gone by, but with not the online data dump that can now be sent. As has been said this evening, young barristers will often effectively work for nothing, which itself is a barrier to diversity and to poorer people entering the profession. I could go on with such examples at length, but hon. Members will get the picture.
The answer to this situation, without any doubt, will involve consolidation of this fractured nineteenth-century legal services marketplace. Although the number of small firms has slowly reduced in recent times, the most practical way to aid the process would be a larger-scale system of contracting for legal aid work. That would involve fewer but larger practices operating over a larger area, resulting in fewer firms receiving a larger slice of the remaining pie on a single-fee basis. In turn, it would create firms that have the money to invest in training and technology, and with the size and depth required properly to cover the contract areas.
Yes, we have more data than ever before, but charging to read it on a per page basis is simply outdated. Most of the extra data is useless guff from, say, social media. The answer is to have firms of lawyers that are able to invest in the technology now available to sort the wheat from the chaff. That will only come from market consolidation, and a vital aspect of that will be to treat barristers and solicitor equally. If teams of barristers wish to compete for legal aid contracts, they should be free to do so, in the same way as sole-practitioner solicitors band together with other solicitors, or indeed with barristers, to bid for contracts.
The Legal Services Act 2007, brought in by the last Labour Government with Conservative support, provides the necessary mechanism—the alternative business structures—for that to happen. Solicitors and barristers could work together, and the alternative business structures could raise capital and employ non-legal executive managers to run an effective business. We would then start to see a sustainable market taking shape.
I have some sympathy with those who complain that the criminal justice system is creaking at the seams, but rather less sympathy with those who say that the answer is more of the same. We need to face up to the need to change the rules of the game and of the marketplace. The tools and answers are certainly out there if we are prepared to take the required steps.

John Howell: As a non-lawyer, I will start by looking at the justice system as a whole. In doing so, I see that the courts need to become online courts—I have discussed that with Lord Briggs and have seen how it is developing. I see the Ministry of Justice bringing forward online divorces, which is an interesting proposal. I also see £1 billion being put into court reform and modernisation, which will improve working conditions for those in court and speed up many paper-based activities. Finally, I see modernising reforms in other areas, such as the Crown court digital case system, to encourage electronic evidence.
Those reforms create a simpler, fairer and more modern payment scheme for all advocates. As has been described, it replaces an archaic system, under which barristers billed by pages of evidence, regardless of the level of complexity or the work involved. This is not a cut to barristers’ fees. In fact, the Ministry of Justice estimates that around two thirds of advocates would have benefited from the new schemes had they been in place in 2016-17.
The Minister has said that she has listened carefully to the views of respondents, particularly the concerns raised in relation to junior advocates in the solicitor and barrister professions alike, and that the rebalancing she has done has been to everyone’s advantage. I do not think this statutory instrument should be revoked, and I am happy to support the Government on this.

Alex Chalk: When it comes to the opposition to the changes to the graduated fee scheme, the Government are entitled to feel a little perplexed because the changes were discussed with the leadership of the Bar. Francis Fitzgibbon, QC, then chair of the CBA, said that
“the CBA believes that the new scheme is a great improvement on what has gone before, and we should at least give it a cautious welcome as a step in the right direction.”
Secondly, the aim of the changes, to rebalance public funding so it rewards the junior Bar more fairly, is unassailable. On that point, I will support the Government tonight.
It would be a great mistake to misread the message coming from the Bar, because my clear sense is that its protest is not really about the intricacies of these specific provisions. Instead, it reflects years of pent-up anguish and frustration about the state of the criminal defence profession and, indeed, a profound sense of foreboding for its future.
The Bar is in a fragile state and needs decisive support, but it does not lie in the mouth of the Labour Opposition to make criticisms about on that, because I know full well from having been a practitioner at the time that, at a time of rising budgets across the piece in health and education during the late 1990s and in the first decade of the 21st century, Labour failed time after time to put more money into the Bar. In 2003, Tony Blair spoke of the “gravy train” of legal aid. In 2006, Lord Falconer referred to the legal aid bill as being “unsustainable”, and there were further plans to cut it in 2010. One has to consider those remarks with great care.
I wish to make some brief observations in the time available; I wanted to say a lot more but I shall confine myself to this. When considering the amount we spend  on justice and legal aid, we should put it in context. Treasury Red Book figures show that total public sector spending for 2018-19 is expected to be £809 billion. The total Ministry of Justice budget is less than £7 billion. To put that in context, more is spent on welfare and pensions in two weeks than is spent on justice, and the amount spent on international aid—about £14 billion—is approximately double the entire justice budget. To put it another way, we spend more on the aid effort in Syria alone than we do on the entire legal aid budget in our country.
There are concerns about where this all heads. There will be difficulties with recruitment and retention, and we cannot have a situation where this is a just a job for posh kids with a private income. There is also a risk of injustice. If people are not available to do the work we require them to do, it will not just be a case of people being convicted when they should not be; there is a danger of people not being convicted if juries take matters into their own hands and decide that they want to deliver their own brand of justice.
I am not suggesting this is easy at all, but I want to make three simple points. First, if the criminal Bar falls over, the cost to the state will increase dramatically. The overheads involved in employing hundreds of barristers in a fully fledged public defender service will be extortionate and unaffordable. Secondly, the culture will change, and people will be far less likely to work after-hours and at the weekend. Thirdly, the sums of money required to secure the criminal Bar are modest. Barristers are not seeking wealth; they are seeking viability.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that last point about the motivation of barristers. Does he agree that one of the important qualities that the independent Bar brings, as indeed does an objective solicitor, is precisely that word—objectivity? The objectivity brought by a barrister has been seen in many cases, for example, those where disclosure failures have occurred, and in the willingness to root out what is absolutely necessary, fearlessly, on behalf of a client. That cannot be replicated.

Alex Chalk: That objectivity is vital. In the United States, they have dyed-in-the-wool prosecutors. I remember the case of Michael Jackson, with Tom “Mad Dog” Sneddon; all these people do is prosecute. One great value we have in this country is that people prosecute and defend. That level of objectivity is fantastic. It also means that people are incentivised to go the extra mile, because you are only as good as your last brief.
The criminal Bar is precious. This is not about sentiment. This is a flinty-eyed assessment of a real and pressing need. Once this matter is over tonight—I will vote with the Government, because the Opposition’s proposal is, with respect, misconceived—I urge the Government to look again at how the criminal Bar can be supported, as there is a pressing need.

Bob Stewart: We cannot have those with the ability and will to try to enter the criminal law profession impoverished by debt and a lack of basic resources to live, especially those who  come from perhaps a more humble background. The new scheme seems to distribute some money from middle or senior junior barristers to the more junior barristers, but I gather the effect on senior junior barristers could be a fall in income of as much as 35%, but the impact on the most junior criminal barristers is simply not very much. The truth is that the system does need more money, which cannot be found simply by switching around payments within it. Criminal barristers are self-employed and they must also meet the unavoidable overheads of practising, which normally range from about 25% to 35% of their income. There is no entitlement to pensions, holiday pay, sick pay or, indeed, maternity or paternity pay. Assuming a junior criminal barrister earned a total of, say, £60,000 annually, after they paid overheads and pension contributions and compensated for holidays, he or she would probably present an income of only around £30,000 to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
A career at the Bar is insecure and financially uncertain: trials can be moved by judges without consultation; witnesses can be taken ill; defendants may accept advice to plead guilty; and charges may be dropped. All can have a significant impact on barristers’ income, without warning. In such an uncertain climate, reasonable fees are necessary. The level of debt with which new criminal law barristers must deal, insufficient fees and increased demands make a social and family life almost impossible. I understand that right now morale is low and dismay universal among junior criminal barrister and, indeed, among some senior junior barristers, too. I very much hope that the Minister can tell me honestly that junior criminal law barristers will have a much better deal than they had in the past.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.

Lindsay Hoyle: I ask the Sergeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
The House divided:
Ayes 252, Noes 300.

The House having divided: Ayes 252, Noes 300.
Question accordingly negatived.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Lindsay Hoyle: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 8 to 10 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order. No. 118(6)),

Local Government

That the draft West Suffolk (Local Government Changes) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 19 March, be approved.
That the draft West Suffolk (Modification of Boundary Change Enactments) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 19 March, be approved.

Competition

That the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Share of Supply Test) (Amendment) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 15 March, be approved.—(Chris Heaton-Harris)
Question agreed to.

TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Martin Vickers be discharged from the Transport Committee and Jack Brereton be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Selection Committee.)

PETITION - ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND CLOSURE IN SALTCOATS

Patricia Gibson: I rise to present this petition from the residents of the North Ayrshire and Arran constituency, which attracted 564 signatures, gathered by myself, dedicated Saltcoats Scottish National party activists and our SNP councillors, to express our concern at the proposed closure of the Royal Bank of Scotland branch in Saltcoats.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of North Ayrshire & Arran,
Declares that proposed closure of the 3 branches of the publicly-owned Royal Bank of Scotland in the areas of Kilbirnie, Kilwinning & Saltcoats will have a detrimental effect on local communities and the local economy.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Royal Bank of Scotland to take into account the concerns of petitioners and take whatever steps they can to halt the planned closure of these branches.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002137]

Homeopathy: Veterinary Medicine

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Paul Maynard.)

David Tredinnick: This debate is very timely because of the recent changes that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has made to its guidelines, which have angered the public and homeopathic vets alike and triggered two marches to the headquarters of the RCVS and a rally in Parliament Square, at which I had the honour of speaking. I am happy to see the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), in his place, not least because my family come from Redruth and were mining engineers—I am attempting to engender a little sympathy from him before I proceed.
The key issue is a new requirement in the guidelines that homeopathy should only be used in conjunction with conventional medicine. The second issue is the highly contentious assertions made by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons about a lack of evidence and safety and animal welfare, which are apparently related in this instance. The third issue is a lack of consultation.
The RCVS did not consult at all the people who know the subject—the Faculty of Homeopathy, the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons, the International Association for Veterinary Homeopathy, the European Committee for Homeopathy and the Homeopathy Research Institute. None of those organisations was consulted prior to the issuing of these guidelines. After the second march, the RCVS graciously agreed to meet a delegation, but sadly the delegation wrote to me afterwards saying:
“It became apparent that there was a total lack of understanding of the principles of homeopathy.”
It invited the RCVS to visit a practice, but I am not sure that that offer has been accepted.
I wrote to the RCVS, and it replied to my letter with, I regret to say, three glaring errors. First, it cited the 2010 report of the Science and Technology Committee, which it said
“concluded that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious”.
It never did anything of the sort. I attended that Committee, and it was an evidence check. It only found that there was no evidence; it did not make any findings about effectiveness.
Secondly, the RCVS claims:
“we have not sought to remove choice as this remains”.
It does not. Choice has been removed, because before these guidelines came out, homeopaths could practise without using homeopathy and conventional medicine together.
Thirdly, the RCVS made claims about animal welfare issues. This is very important, and I asked a parliamentary question, to which my hon. Friend the Minister graciously replied:
“The Department does not have any evidence that shows that homeopathic vets are a risk to animal welfare by using homeopathy as an alternative treatment to conventional medicine options.”

Jim Shannon: I sought the hon. Gentleman’s permission to intervene, and I thank him for letting me do so. Does he not agree that with the rise  in antibiotic use in animals—it is very pertinent at this time—anything that can prevent the introduction of antibiotics can only be a good thing and must be given full consideration? Perhaps the Minister could tell us in his response what he is doing through his Department to reduce antibiotic use in animals.

David Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman speaks with wisdom and experience. No doubt, he too has looked at the European position, which is completely the opposite of the one taken by the RCVS. There is a European directive on organic products, which states in article 24(2) of Commission regulation (EC) No. 889/2008, that
“Phytotherapeutic”—
that is, herbal—
“and homeopathic products, trace elements…shall be used in preference to chemically-synthesised allopathic veterinary treatment or antibiotics”.
That was because the European Union as a whole was so worried about the abuse of antibiotics, and I started speaking about the use of antibiotics in animals in the 1987 Parliament.
Let me give my hon. Friend the Minister the view of a farmer, who wrote to me, saying
“did you know that farmers often like using homeopathy for cows with mastitis because if they do so, they can sell the milk. If they use antibiotics, the milk must be thrown out.”
Safety is very important, and I hope the Minister will dispose of that point later as some homeopathic vets have simply stopped practising because they perceive themselves to be under a legal threat.
This is at a time when, according to the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons, there is an explosion of interest in homeopathy, largely I would suggest because of the antibiotics problem. It says that
“there is an explosion of interest in CAM”—
complementary and alternative medicine—
“including Homeopathy”, in the agricultural sector where the drive is to reduce and replace dependence on antibiotics in light of Antibiotic Resistance…concerns”.

David Drew: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this threatens biodynamic agriculture, which is a particularly interesting and growing part of the agricultural sector?

David Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. The most successful methods for coping with this antibiotic problem are actually complementary and alternative medicines, of which homeopathy is proving one of the most successful modalities.
The placebo argument—that this is all in the imagination—is often used against homeopathy, but Buttercup and Daisy do not understand double blind placebo-controlled trials. Farmers do understand them, and when I sat on the Science and Technology Committee during the 2010 to 2015 Parliament, Roger Williams, the then Member for Brecon and Radnorshire from the Liberal Democrats, told me, “As a livestock farmer, I of course use carbo veg”—Carbo vegetabilis, which is known colloquially as the corpse reviver—“when I can’t do anything else with an animal that I think is going to die.” It is very often the medicine of last resort both for  animals and, of course, for humans. Farmers will not waste money on something that does not work, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister agrees.
As I mentioned at Prime Minister’s questions two weeks ago, the World Health Organisation says that homeopathy is the second largest medical system in the world, with 300,000 doctors treating 200 million patients annually. I suggest to my hon. Friend that that is pretty powerful evidence—they would not otherwise be training and practising—and we should look at that. There are actually 700 vets in 36 countries who are members of the International Association for Veterinary Homeopathy. The German Ministry of Food and Agriculture backs homeopathy. In January 2018, it said that it
“supports the use of homeopathic remedies and the free choice of therapy for veterinarians.”
Why are we getting all these attacks? It actually has nothing to do with healthcare—it is to do with protecting vested interests, and a sense of defensiveness against the perceived threat to conventional practitioners, to drug companies supplying drugs and to currently held scientific beliefs. The scale of the vicious attacks that colleagues have had over the years by those opposed to homeopathy is testament to that. Given the hate mail that has been sent to MPs during past Parliaments, jamming their mail boxes, I believe those people could now face prosecution under new legislation. They ridicule and humiliate anybody who supports this very valuable branch of medicine. They use legal threats to clinical commissioning groups. I am kind of curious about this—I have a feeling that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons was itself threatened with legal action by this group. Once there is a writ and something is through the door, of course, the whole legal process starts; that is why I had a letter from a lawyer of theirs.
The antis also claim that there is no scientific evidence that homeopathy works, but of the 189 randomised control trials up to 2014, 41% were positive, finding that homeopathy was effective. The figures for conventional medicine are just about the same, at 44%. There is no difference. There is good statistical evidence that both homeopathy and conventional medicine work.
I also had the honour to serve on the Health Committee in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament; in fact, I chaired it for a while, when we got the long-term care and conditions report out. In 2014, I cross-examined the Secretary of State for Health about his views. He said:
“the system we have is that we allow GPs to decide whatever they think is in the clinical interests of their own patients.”
If my memory serves me well, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who has subsequently signed a motion, was one of those under attack for supporting homeopathy. He said in answer to a question:
“Complementary and alternative medicine treatments can, in principle, feature in a range of services offered by local NHS organisations, including general practitioners.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 149.]

Alistair Carmichael: I should first declare an interest: my wife is a practising veterinary surgeon and a partner in a veterinary practice.
I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he needs to be a little careful about conflating medicine for humans with medicine for animals. As a human, I am  able to make these choices for myself; animals are not in a position to do that for themselves. That is why we have to approach the two disciplines differently.

David Tredinnick: The right hon. Gentleman makes his point. They are different: as far as animals are concerned, we cannot run trials; we can only take a view on how the medicine or treatment is working. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that farmers are not so foolish as to spend a lot of money on something that does not work. They see it working over a long period of time.
I have an informal arrangement with the Minister to give him the full time of a quarter of an hour to respond. In the past, I have noticed that colleagues can run away with themselves, leaving only five minutes for the Minister, who says that they do not have enough time to speak. This Minister will have lots of time to speak.

Chris Davies: My hon. Friend has clearly raised the fact that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons very much opposes homeopathy, but we have not mentioned the British Veterinary Association, which was equally opposed. My understanding is, however, that its mood may be mellowing towards homeopathy. Has my hon. Friend’s hard work paid off, I wonder?

David Tredinnick: One or two things have been “going off”, as they say nowadays, for the last few weeks, including questions and marches.
To sum up, in veterinary medicine there is room for all. Of course there is room for conventional medicine; we cannot produce a calf from a struggling cow unless we use conventional medicine. There is room for conventional and homeopathic medicine: on that much I agree with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. But there is also room for stand-alone homeopathy, as there always has been—there is no need to change the playing field. Nearly two weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister, during Prime Minister’s questions:
“Does she agree that homeopathic vets should be able to make their own minds up about whether to use homeopathy on its own or with other treatments, too?”
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister replied:
“As regards all the issues he has addressed, it is right that those who are professionally able to make these judgments are left to make them.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 877.]
We should mark the Prime Minister’s words and agree that properly regulated homeopathic vets should be free to make up their own minds.

George Eustice: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) on securing this important debate. With a name like Tredinnick he could only hail from Redruth, where it is a very common name. Anything that begins with the letters “tre” tends to be from Cornwall.
I recognise that my hon. Friend has been a very long-standing campaigner for alternative medicines in general and homeopathy in particular. I do not have any particular strong convictions one way or the other on this issue, but I recognise that the consensus among  veterinary opinion is one of scepticism. Before addressing the specific issues he raised, I want to start by making a couple of more general points.
As a point of general principle, I do not agree that contrarian viewpoints in science should be deemed or labelled as some form of scientific heresy. Those who, like me, believe in an enlightened approach to evidence should always welcome and engage in debate, and should never tolerate the tactics of bullying, abuse or ridicule. I recognise that my hon. Friend has suffered a lot of this behaviour himself in this sometimes fraught debate. Let me say that I say that I find that unacceptable, irrespective of one’s views on the issue. Even those who believe strongly and passionately disagree with homeopathy and disagree with the evidence supporting it should recognise the value in discussing it so that it provides a reference point for their own version of the truth.
Traditionally in science it has been very important to observe, through scientific trials and scientific evidence, to try to discern patterns and then, having discerned and observed patterns, try to build a more precise body of evidence in the form of statistics. I think it is fair to say that in recent decades there has been a tendency in science to neglect those basic skills of observation and instead to just resort to narrow statistics and what can be measured. The hon. Gentleman, irrespective of different views we might have, raises a valid point about that tendency in modern science, which can mean that we sometimes miss things that are important.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has a role in maintaining a register of qualified vets. This is, effectively, a system of self-regulation underpinned by statute. It has a royal charter that dates back to 1844. The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 established a statutory role for it to recognise qualified vets. Under the 1966 Act, the RCVS has a role in maintaining a register. It also has a role in regulating the conduct of its professional members, supervising the registration of its members and suspending registration where it believes there has been a breach of its code. However, it is not the role of the RCVS to make decisions on veterinary medicines or indeed veterinary treatments. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate is a Government agency that makes evidence-based assessments of veterinary medicines.
Homeopathic products are not formally assessed for their efficacy, but they are assessed for their quality and safety. Their use is therefore lawful. I know that the RCVS statement in November 2017 caused quite a lot of controversy. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there have been protests and much disquiet among some of those vets who practise homeopathy. I should perhaps point out an interest here. In my constituency of Camborne and Redruth I have a fantastic charity called the Cinnamon Trust. It mobilises thousands of volunteers right across the country to visit the homes of the elderly who are no longer able to walk their own dogs and to walk those dogs for them. This fabulous charity means that the volunteers give social contact to those elderly people by taking their dog for a walk and they make sure that elderly people, often suffering from loneliness, can enjoy the companionship of pets with the help of volunteers.
That charity engages a conventional vet who occasionally uses some homeopathic therapies. I am told by veterinary practitioners of homeopathy that they believe they see results for a number of particular conditions. Cushing’s disease in horses is mentioned—a condition that afflicts  older horses and can lead to lameness—and I am also told that it can be effective when dealing with arthritis in older dogs and in managing some symptoms of certain cancers. Practitioners argue that for certain conditions that principally affect older animals, when conventional medicines have run their course and they have run out of options, homeopathy can help to manage a condition. I am told that homeopathy is at times quite useful when there may be side-effects from using more conventional veterinary medicines, or when there are allergies from their use.
A debate has always been had about the evidence and the quality of the evidence base, but as my hon. Friend pointed out, there are practitioners out there who believe that they see some results in some circumstances, and they can see they do not see those in all circumstances. Certainly, some of the vets that I have spoken to who practise homeopathy are very clear that this complements their approach to conventional medicine. When they believe that conventional veterinary treatments have run their course and can offer nothing further for a particular animal, or are not giving them the results they want, they will sometimes choose, as an alternative, to use complementary approaches and practices.
The RCVS statement, having sparked controversy, has been the subject of some discussion between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the RCVS, which has confirmed it is not at all its intention to ban the use of homeopathy. I understand that its concern is that in some instances, some vets, rather than using homeopathy as a complementary approach alongside conventional medicine, are perhaps refraining from using other, possibly more effective, conventional medicine in preference to homeopathy. In some cases, the RCVS believes that that may be affecting the welfare of the animal. It assures us that that is what it is attempting to address and that it has no intention to ban the use of homeopathy by its members. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that that is the position that the RCVS has set out to us.
Since I have the luxury of time, I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about antibiotic use. He is right: this is something that we are keen to reduce, and the O’Neill report set out some detailed approaches for doing that. It is also the case that adopting a different approach to livestock husbandry and using vaccines in a more effective way, rather than antibiotic treatments, is part of the key to getting down our use of antibiotics.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing an intervention. Has any advice that has been given to him on reducing antibiotic use recommended the use of homeopathic remedies?

George Eustice: No, I have not had any advice to that effect, but there are other approaches. For instance, one thing that we know can reduce the use of antibiotics in pigs is the gentle acidification of the water. We also know that turning animals out to grass in the spring can reduce the disease load and reduce the need to use antibiotics. Turning animals out to grass is quite difficult to measure, but we know that it is good for animals. On his specific point, no I have not had any such advice, but we are doing a great deal to reduce our use of antibiotics, since it is a very important issue.
In conclusion, we have had an interesting debate. I commend my hon. Friend for raising this issue.

David Tredinnick: I am nervous that my hon. Friend is about to sit down, in which case the debate will be over, so, as we have a little time, I want to take this opportunity to thank him for coming. That a Minister of State, not an Under-Secretary, is responding indicates the deep concern in DEFRA about this. Given the exchanges and public interaction, and his own conversations with the RCVS, surely we are all on the same side and what we need is for the RCVS to go away, take cognisance of what has transpired in the last couple of weeks and see if it cannot come up with something that might make everybody happy.

George Eustice: As I said, the RCVS has sought to be very clear that it is not banning the use of homeopathy by vets; it is not even its place to do that—were that to happen, it would be for the VMD—but my hon. Friend raises an important point. The RCVS might want, in its council and among its members, to clarify what it actually means, which I understand to be as follows: it is not banning the use of homeopathy, but vets who use it should use it to complement other approaches, possibly where those are not proving effective, and not refrain from using approaches that might be more effective in order to practise homeopathy in isolation. I think that was its point, but I am sure it would be happy to clarify the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.